Yevamot 114a (קיד.) — the Talmud in English

He said to him: Go!

Take boys and girls,

lead small boys and small girls in the public domain,

and let them stroll there,

and

if they find them—

bring them.

For if they find them there, they will bring them to you on their own.

Apparently, he holds

Rabbi Pedat, that

a minor who eats unslaughtered animal carcasses—

the court is not commanded to separate him

from eating them.

Let us say that this supports him

from that which was taught in a beraita:

A person may not say to a minor

on Shabbat:

Bring me a key

through the public domain, or

bring me a signet

through the public domain.

Rather,

he may

leave him

to

pluck

on his own on Shabbat. Or he may

leave him

to

throw

an object on his own in the public domain, and he is not obligated to prevent him from performing labor on Shabbat. That is, a person is not obligated to prevent a minor from committing a prohibition.

Abaye said:

This is not proof with regard to a prohibition from the Torah.

For it is possible to say that he may leave him to

pluck from a flowerpot that has no hole,

since what grows in it does not draw nourishment from the ground, plucking from it does not involve a Torah prohibition; it is prohibited only by rabbinic decree.

Likewise, he may leave him to

throw

an object

in a karmelit,

which is neither a private domain nor a public domain, and the prohibition against carrying in it is only

rabbinic.

Come and hear

a proof from what we learned in tractate Shabbat [121a]:

If a gentile comes to extinguish

a fire on Shabbat—

we do not say to him: Extinguish

the fire.

And

we are not obligated to say to him:

Do not extinguish

it.

The reason that one need not prevent a gentile from performing an act on his own on Shabbat for the benefit of a Jew is

because his resting

is not a mitzva incumbent

upon them

the Jews.

But

a minor

who is Jewish

who comes to extinguish

on his own—

we say to him: Do not extinguish!

Because

his resting

as a Jewish minor is a mitzva incumbent

upon them!?

This proves that every person is obligated to prevent a minor from eating unslaughtered animal carcasses, even if the minor eats them on his own.

Rabbi Yohanan said,

to reject the proof:

It concerns

a minor

who acts at his father’s direction,

who sees that his father wants the fire extinguished, and it is therefore as though his father commanded him to do so.

But in Rabbi Pedat’s case, where he instructed them to lead the children there so that they would bring the keys from the public domain, the children act solely on their own initiative. They had not been told that the keys had been lost or that there was a need to bring them.

The Gemara raises an objection to Rabbi Yohanan’s words:

If the obligation to prevent the minor from extinguishing the fire is because he performs his act at his father’s direction, then

similarly,

the permission we granted to extinguish

with regard to a gentile

must be understood in the same manner in which we understood the minor’s act:

that he does

so

at the Jew’s direction.

But this is difficult:

is it permitted—

is it permitted for the gentile to come and extinguish the fire at the Jew’s direction!?

And we answer:

A gentile

who comes to extinguish it does not do so at the Jew’s direction; rather,

he acts for his own purposes.

He does so on his own initiative, of his own will, and for his own benefit, knowing that the Jew will eventually pay him his wages.

Come and hear

another proof from that which was taught: A minor who is

the son of a “trusted associate”,

who is meticulous in the complete observance of the commandments,

who regularly goes to his maternal grandfather

who is

an am haaretz,

and is not meticulous in observing the commandments like a trusted associate,

we are not concerned that he will feed him

produce concerning which his grandfather, the am haaretz, is not careful to separate tithes,

untithed produce,

without having tithed it.

Therefore, if

the trusted associate finds

the

fruit

in the hands

of his son

that he received from his am haaretz grandfather—

he need not attend to him,

to take it away from him in order to prevent him from eating it, since perhaps it was not tithed.

Yet there is a doubt whether the am haaretz tithed it, and nevertheless the father is not commanded to prevent the minor from eating it!

Rabbi Yohanan said:

This is not proof with regard to the law of a minor who eats unslaughtered animal carcasses, because most ammei haaretz do tithe their produce, and only a minority do not tithe. By Torah law, it would be possible to rely on the majority; however, the Sages were stringent and instituted the law of demai, that produce of an am haaretz may not be eaten before tithes are separated from it.

Therefore,

with regard to demai they were lenient,

so that it is unnecessary to prevent a minor from eating it.

The Gemara raises an objection to Rabbi Yohanan’s words:

Rather, the reason

that they were lenient is

because it is demai

.

That

is, if these were fruits that were

definitely

tevel—

he would have needed

his father

to tithe

the fruit in order to prevent him from eating tevel.

If so, this is difficult:

but Rabbi Yohanan said

that one need not prevent a minor from extinguishing a fire on Shabbat unless he is

doing

so

at his father’s direction, and not when he does so on his own!?

and not when he acts on his own!?

The Gemara explains Rabbi Yohanan’s position, showing that there is no contradiction between his rulings.

Rather, Rabbi Yohanan was uncertain

whether one is commanded to prevent a minor from committing a prohibition.

Therefore,

here he takes the position of rejecting.

Here he takes the position of rejecting.

Each time a proof was brought to resolve his uncertainty, Rabbi Yohanan rejected it, saying that the opposite could be maintained.

Come and hear

a proof from another beraita:

The son of a trusted associate who is a priest, who regularly goes to his maternal grandfather, a priest who is an am haaretz—

we are not concerned that he will feed him

his grandfather

impure teruma.

If he finds fruit in his possession—

he need not attend to him,

to prevent him from eating it, even though there is concern that it may be impure teruma, which a priest is prohibited by Torah law from eating.

The Gemara rejects this proof: This beraita is speaking

of rabbinic teruma.

Come and hear

a proof from another beraita:

An infant nurses and continues nursing from a gentile woman and from an impure animal, and we are not concerned

for him

that

he is thereby violating the prohibition

“one who nurses from an abomination”,

even though its prohibition is from the Torah.

But one may not feed him

the infant directly

unslaughtered and improperly slaughtered animals, creeping things, and crawling creatures.

And from all of them,

from all those from which we permitted him to nurse,

he may nurse from them even on Shabbat,

although milking on Shabbat is prohibited by Torah law.

But an adult is prohibited

from nursing from an animal on Shabbat because of the prohibition of mefarek, extracting the milk from the animal’s udders.

Abba Shaul says: We would customarily nurse from a kosher animal on a Festival.

The Gemara infers:

In any event, it teaches

that with regard to an infant

we are not concerned

for him

with regard to “one who nurses from an abomination”,

and we are not commanded to separate him from it.

The Gemara rejects the proof:

There,

with regard to an infant’s nursing, they permitted him to nurse

because of danger.

they permitted him to nurse.

The Gemara asks:

If so,

if the case involves danger to life—

an adult as well

should be permitted to nurse on Shabbat, and not only a minor!?

The Gemara answers:

With regard to an adult—he

requires an assessment

of whether he would be endangered by waiting until the conclusion of Shabbat and nursing in a permitted manner. Since his permission is not evident, the tanna did not teach it in the beraita.

And we refute this:

A minor too should require an assessment

of whether he would be endangered by waiting before nursing!?

Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, said: An ordinary infant is considered endangered with regard to milk.

Abba Shaul says: We would customarily nurse from a kosher animal on a Festival.

The Gemara considers this:

What are the circumstances

in which this nursing was permitted?

If there is danger—

even on Shabbat as well

it should be permitted.

And if there is no danger—

even on a Festival

as well it should be

prohibited!

After all, the labor of mefarek was not permitted on a Festival, since it is not included among the labors for food preparation that were permitted on a Festival [for the permitted labors begin only with kneading and thereafter].

And we answer:

It is necessary—the permission to nurse on a Festival applies in a case

where there is

suffering

for the person who requires this nursing if he does not nurse.

And he holds

that this tanna considers nursing directly from the animal’s udder

“mefarek” performed in an unusual manner.

That is, the “extraction of milk” from an animal’s udders is ordinarily performed by milking with the hands, whereas one who nurses from the animal with his mouth performs the labor in an altered manner; this is not a Torah labor, but is prohibited only by rabbinic decree.

The Sages distinguished between the cases and said:

With regard to Shabbat, where the prohibition

against performing labor with one’s hands is the severe prohibition of

stoning—

the Sages decreed

that one may not nurse in an altered manner even in a case of suffering.

With regard to a Festival, where

the labor is only

a prohibition of a negative commandment

—

the Sages did not decree

against nursing in an altered manner, and they permitted it in a case of suffering.

Come and hear

a proof from another beraita, concerning the consumption of creeping things, as stated at the end of the portion of Shemini [Leviticus 11]:

“You shall not eat them—

for they are an abomination.”

This verse is superfluous, since many warnings are stated in the Torah concerning the prohibition against eating creeping creatures. Therefore, I read the verse here as

“You shall not feed them”,

instead of “You shall not eat.” And the verse comes

to warn adults concerning minors

with regard to eating creeping things.

The Gemara infers:

Is it not

the intention of the verse

that he says to them,

that an adult must say to the minors:

“You shall not eat

creeping things”?

This proves that a minor who eats unslaughtered animal carcasses must be separated from them by Torah law.

The Gemara rejects the proof:

No,

this is not the intention of the verse. Rather, it means

that they may not feed him

creeping creatures

directly.

Come and hear

from another teaching:

As it was taught:

“Every person among you shall not eat blood.”

The verse adds the word “every”

to warn adults concerning minors,

with regard to eating blood.

Is it not that they say to them,

the adults to the minors:

“You shall not eat

blood”?

This proves that adults are commanded to separate minors from committing a prohibition.

The Gemara rejects this:

No,

the adults are not obligated to separate them; rather, the intention of the verse is to say

that they may not feed them

blood,

directly.

Come and hear

from another teaching concerning the prohibition against priests contracting impurity:

It is written at the beginning of the portion of Emor [Leviticus 21]:

“Say

to the priests,

and you shall say

to them.”

“Say” to the priests themselves, and “you shall say to them”—

to warn adults concerning minors

with regard to impurity imparted by a corpse!

Is it not that he says to them,

that one is commanded to prevent minor priests and to say to them:

“Do not become impure!”

The Gemara rejects the proof:

No,

it is not necessary to prevent them; rather, the intention of the verse is to say

that they may not cause them to become impure—

adult priests may not cause minor priests to become impure

directly.

And they are necessary: Three verses, in three different contexts, are needed to teach the prohibition against feeding a minor a prohibited substance directly: blood, creeping creatures, and the impurity of priests.

three verses, concerning three different matters, are needed to teach the prohibition against feeding a minor a prohibited substance directly: blood, creeping creatures, and the ritual impurity of kohanim.