Shabbat 107a — the Talmud in English

Gemara:

Rabbi Abba said that Rav Hiyya bar Ashi said

that Rav said: A bird entered beneath his wings

that had been caught in his garment;

he sits and guards it until nightfall

and he does not need to release it, since he is merely guarding it.

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak objected:

We learned in the Mishna:

“The first one sat at the opening and filled it, and the second came and sat beside him; even though the first one stood up and went away, the first one is liable and the second one is exempt.”

And we infer:

Is it not so that

“exempt” means

exempt but forbidden—so it is forbidden even initially, also when he is merely guarding it?

And we answer:

No!

Rather,

he is exempt and it is permitted.

This too is logically indicated:

that it is permitted even initially,

from what it teaches in the latter clause

of the Mishna:

“To what is this comparable? To one who locks his house to guard it, and a deer is found guarded inside it.”

By inference: He is exempt and it is permitted!

For everyone does this.

Conclude from it!

There are those who state it this way: Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: We too have learned this

that it is permitted even initially when a bird entered beneath his wings. For we learned:

“Even though the first one stood up and went away, the first one is liable and the second one is exempt.”

What, is it not: exempt and permitted?

And we reject this:

No!

Rather,

exempt but forbidden.

he is exempt but it is prohibited.

And we challenge the rejection:

But from what it teaches in the latter clause, “To what is this comparable? To one who locks his house to guard it, and a deer is found guarded inside it”—by inference, is he not exempt and is it not permitted?

Conclude from it

that he is exempt and it is permitted!

Shemu’el said: All the exemptions concerning Shabbat

wherever it says “exempt” in tractate Shabbat, that means

exempt

but forbidden, except

outside of

these three, where he is exempt and it is permitted.

One: This

of the Mishna, concerning the first one sitting at the opening and filling it, and the second coming and sitting beside him, and the first one standing up and going away—that the second one is exempt and it is permitted.

And from where do we know that he is exempt and it is permitted?

For it teaches in the latter clause: “To what is this comparable? To one who locks his house to guard it, and a deer is found guarded inside it.”

And the other

is that which we learned:

One who opens an abscess

opens a wound in which there is pus;

if

his intention

is to make an opening for it

—that he intends to improve it and for it to remain open—

he is liable,

because of building an opening or because of repairing; what difference is there to me between repairing a vessel and repairing a wound? And

if

his intention is only

to remove

the

pus

and to ease his pain, and he does not care that it should close again immediately,

he is exempt, because it is a labor not needed for its own purpose, for he does not need the opening; and it is even permitted initially, because in a place of pain the Sages did not decree.

And from where do we know that he is exempt and it is permitted?

For we learned

later, at the beginning of the chapter “All the Vessels”: A person may take …

a hand needle

a small needle with which garments are sewn,

to remove with it a thorn

that has become embedded in his flesh, for even though the needle is a vessel whose labor is for a forbidden purpose, it is permitted to move it “for his bodily need.”

And by taking out the thorn he makes an opening in the wound; nevertheless, since he does not intend to make an opening and it is a place of pain, they permitted it even initially, and the same applies to opening an abscess.

And the other

is that which we learned:

One who hunts a snake on Shabbat, if he is occupied with it so that it should not bite him

—that is, this is why he hunts it—

he is exempt,

because it is a labor not needed for its own purpose, since he has no need for the snake. And

if

he hunts the snake in order to use it

for healing, he is liable

because of hunting.

And from where do we know that he is exempt and it is permitted

when he is occupied with it so that it should not bite him? [In a place where there is no danger, but only a concern of bodily harm.]

For we learned: One overturns a bowl

of earthenware

over the lamp

on Shabbat

so that it should not seize

the fire

upon the beam

of the ceiling, provided that the lamp is not extinguished through this.

And

over the excrement of a child

so that the infant should not become soiled by it [and the novelty in both of these is that it is permitted to move something for the sake of something that may not be moved on Shabbat].

And over a scorpion, so that it should not sting.

Thus, although the scorpion is hunted through overturning the bowl, nevertheless, since it is a labor not needed for its own purpose, it is permitted even initially in order to prevent harm.

We have completed for you the chapter “The Weaver”

Mishna:

The eight creeping creatures stated in the Torah

in the portion of Shemini with regard to the law of impurity

one who traps them, and one who wounds them

on Shabbat,

is liable,

because only these creeping creatures have skin, and therefore one is liable for trapping them, since the usual purpose of trapping them is for their skins, and this is “a species that is ordinarily trapped”; but with regard to other creeping creatures, there is no need for them, and therefore one is not liable for trapping them.

Likewise, concerning wounding, he is also liable when he wounds them until the blood is congealed beneath the skin, even though it has not yet emerged, for since they have skin, the blood will ultimately emerge, except that the skin presently prevents it from emerging. And the removal of the blood is the removal of the soul in that place, because the blood is the life. And this is a derivative of slaughtering.

Another explanation: Through the wounding, the skin is colored by the blood congealed within it, and he is liable on account of coloring.

But with regard to the other reptiles and creeping creatures —

one who wounds them is exempt

until the blood emerges. But when the blood is merely congealed, he is exempt, because the blood will ultimately return. For if it were destined to emerge, it would emerge immediately, since they do not have skin that would prevent the blood from emerging. [And according to the second explanation, he is exempt since they do not have skin that can become colored ].

One who traps them for a purpose —

].

is liable; if not for a purpose —

is exempt!

Since they do not have skin, it is not the usual practice to trap them, and they are “a species that is not ordinarily trapped,” and their trapping is considered a labor not needed for its own purpose.

An animal or bird that is in his possession

of a person,

one who traps it is exempt,

for they are already trapped and standing.

But one who wounds them is liable,

since they have skin.

Gemara:

Since it teaches

eight creeping creatures

“one who wounds them is liable,” this implies that

these eight creeping creatures

have skin.

And we raise an objection concerning this:

Who is the tanna

who holds this way?

Shmuel said: It is Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri!

For we learned

in tractate Chullin:

Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri says: The eight creeping creatures have skins,

and the practical consequence is with regard to impurity, for their skin does not have the status of the flesh of the creeping creature, which becomes impure in the measure of a lentil; rather, it is pure.

But the Sages dispute him there concerning four creeping creatures out of the eight, namely: the anka, the koach, the lizard, and the chomet, and they hold that their skins are like their flesh and become impure. Thus, according to their view, these four do not have skin.

Rabba bar bar Huna said in the name of Rav: You may even say

that the Mishna

is the opinion of the Sages.

For

the Sages disputed Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri only with regard to impurity, as it is written, “These are the impure ones for you

among every creeping creature,” and we expound from the letter heh of “the impure ones”

to include that their skins

become impure

like their flesh [and this inclusion was stated only in relation to the four creeping creatures; see Rashi].

[and this inclusion was stated only with regard to the four creeping creatures; see Rashi].

But with regard to Shabbat, even the Sages agree

that the skin of all eight creeping creatures is considered skin with regard to wounding or coloring.

And we challenge this:

And

if so,

with regard to Shabbat did the Sages not dispute

Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri, that the skin of the four creeping creatures is not considered skin?

But it was taught in a beraita: One who traps one of the eight creeping creatures stated in the Torah,

or

one who wounds them, is liable; these are the words of Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri.