Yevamot 114a — the Talmud in English

He said to him: Go: ![](pamud.bmp "

exact location on the page")

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 eating carcasses—

the court is not commanded to separate him

from eating them.

Let us say that it supports him

from that which was taught:

A person may not say to a child

on Shabbat:

Bring me a key

through the public domain, or

bring me a seal

through the public domain.

Rather,

he is permitted to

leave him

to be a minor, to

pluck

on his own on Shabbat. Or

leave him

to

throw

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

Abaye said:

There is no proof from here concerning a Torah-law ruling.

For it is possible to say that it is permitted to leave him

to pluck from a non-perforated flowerpot,

since what grows in it does not draw nourishment from the ground, its work does not involve a Torah prohibition on account of plucking; rather, plucking it is forbidden only rabbinically.

Likewise, it is permitted to leave him to

throw

an object

in a karmelit,

which is neither a private domain nor a public domain, for the prohibition of carrying in it is only

rabbinic.

Come and hear

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

A gentile who comes to extinguish

the 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.

And the permission for this—that we need not prevent a gentile from performing an action on his own on Shabbat for a Jew—is

because his resting

of the gentile is not a mitzva

upon them

of Israel.

But

a minor

Israelite

who comes to extinguish

on his own—

we say to him: Do not extinguish!

Because

his resting

of a minor Israelite is a mitzva imposed

upon them!?

And it is proved that the mitzva is imposed upon every person to prevent a minor from eating carcasses, even if the minor eats them on his own.

Rabbi Yohanan said,

to reject the proof:

with

a minor who

acts with his father’s intent,

who sees that his father desires that he extinguish the fire, and it is therefore as though he commands him to do so.

But in Rabbi Pedat’s case, where he instructed them to lead minors there so that they would bring the keys from the public domain, the minors do this solely on their own initiative. For they were not informed that the keys had been lost and that there was a need to bring them.

And the Gemara raises an objection to Rabbi Yohanan’s words:

If we say that the obligation to prevent the minor from extinguishing is because he performs his action at his father’s direction, then

in the corresponding case,

similarly, what we permitted concerning extinguishing

with regard to a gentile,

must be established in the same circumstance in which we established the minor’s action, namely,

that he performs

it

at the direction of an Israelite.

And this may be challenged:

Is it permitted—

is it permitted for the gentile to bring the fire and extinguish it at the direction of an Israelite!?

And we answer:

A gentile

who comes to extinguish does not do so at the direction of an Israelite, but

he acts for his own purposes.

He does so on his own initiative, of his own will, and for his own benefit, since he knows that the Israelite will eventually pay him his wage.

Come and hear

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

the son of a “chaver,”

who is particular about complete observance of the mitzvot,

who is accustomed to go to his mother’s father,

who is

an am ha-aretz,

and is not particular about the mitzvot like a chaver,

we are not concerned that he may feed him

his grandfather, the am ha-aretz, who is not particular about tithes,

produce that has not been prepared,

without having tithed it.

Therefore, if

the chaver finds

the

fruits

in his son’s

hand,

which he received from his grandfather, the am ha-aretz—

he need not attend to him,

to take them from him in order to prevent him from eating them, since perhaps they have not been tithed.

But there is a doubt whether the am ha-aretz tithed them, and nevertheless he is not commanded to prevent the minor from eating them!

Rabbi Yohanan said:

This is no proof concerning the law of a minor eating carcasses, for most ammei ha-aretz tithe their produce, and only a minority of them do not tithe. By Torah law it would be possible to rely on the majority, but the Sages were stringent and instituted the matter of demai, that one should not eat produce of an am ha-aretz before separating tithes from it.

And therefore,

with regard to demai they were lenient,

so that there is no need to prevent a minor from eating it.

And the Gemara raises an objection to Rabbi Yohanan’s words:

Rather, the reason

that they were lenient is because

it is demai

.

But

if these were fruits that were

certainly

tevel—

he would need

his father

to tithe

the fruits, in order to prevent him from eating tevel.

And if so, this may be challenged:

But Rabbi Yohanan said

that one need not prevent the minor from extinguishing the fire on Shabbat except when he is

performing

it

at his father’s direction,

and not when he performs it on his own!?

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

Rather, Rabbi Yohanan was uncertain

whether they are commanded to prevent a minor from committing a prohibition.

And therefore,

here he stands, rejecting,

here he stands, rejecting.

Whenever they brought a proof to resolve his uncertainty, Rabbi Yohanan rejected it, saying that it was possible to state the opposite.

Come and hear

a proof from another beraita:

The son of a chaver, a ko if who is accustomed to go to his mother’s father, a ko hi, an am ha-aretz—

we are not concerned that he may feed him

his grandfather

impure teruma.

If he finds fruits in his hand—

he need not attend to him

to prevent him from eating them, although there is concern that they may be impure teruma, which a ko hen is forbidden by Torah law to eat.

And the Gemara rejects this: This beraita speaks

of rabbinic teruma.

Come and hear

a proof from another beraita:

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

for him

about

the fact that he is transgressing the prohibition of

“one who nurses from a detestable creature”,

although its prohibition is by Torah law.

But one may not feed him

the infant by hand

carcasses and tereifot, detestable creatures and creeping things.

And from all of them,

from all those from which we permitted him to nurse, he

nurses from them even on Shabbat,

although the work of milking on Shabbat is forbidden by Torah law.

But an adult is forbidden

to nurse from an animal on Shabbat, because of the prohibition of “extracting,” as he extracts the milk from the animal’s udders.

Abba Shaul says: We would customarily nurse from a pure animal on a festival.

And the Gemara infers:

In any event, it teaches

that with regard to an infant

we are not concerned

for him

about “one who nurses from a detestable creature”,

and they are not commanded to separate him.

And the Gemara rejects the proof:

There,

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

because of danger.

they permitted him to nurse.

And the Gemara raises an objection:

If so,

that the matter concerns saving a life—

an adult also

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

And the Gemara answers:

An adult

requires an assessment,

whether he is in danger if he waits until the conclusion of Shabbat and nurses permissibly; and since his permission is not certain, the tanna did not teach it in the beraita.

And we challenge:

A minor also should require an assessment,

whether he is in danger if he waits without nursing!?

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

Abba Shaul says: We would customarily nurse from a pure animal on a festival.

And we discuss it:

What are the circumstances—

where was this nursing permitted?

If there is danger—

even on Shabbat also

it is permitted.

And if there is no danger—

even on a festival

also it is

forbidden!

For the work of extracting was not permitted on a festival, since it is not included among the work for food preparation that was permitted on a festival [for work was permitted only from kneading onward].

And we answer:

It is necessary—the permission to nurse on a festival is

in a situation

where there is distress

for one who needs this nursing if he does not nurse.

And he holds

that this tanna, nursing directly by mouth from the animal, is

“extracting” performed in an unusual manner.

That is, the “extraction of milk” from the animal’s udders is normally performed by milking with the hands, whereas one who nurses with his mouth from the animal performs the work with a change [that is, in an unusual manner], so that this is not work prohibited by Torah law, and it is forbidden only rabbinically.

And the Sages distinguished and said:

With regard to Shabbat, whose prohibition

of performing work with the hands is a severe prohibition of

stoning—

the Sages decreed

not to nurse in an unusual manner even in a situation of distress.

With regard to a festival, when

the work involved is only

a prohibition of a negative commandment

—

the Sages did not decree concerning it

against nursing in an unusual manner, and they permitted it in a situation of distress.

Come and hear

a proof from another beraita, concerning eating detestable creatures, as it is stated at the end of the portion of Shemini [Leviticus 11]:

“You shall not eat them—

for they are detestable.”

This verse is superfluous, since many warnings were stated in the Torah concerning the prohibition of eating creeping things. Therefore, here I read

“You shall not feed them” instead of “You shall not eat,” and the verse comes

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

to warn the adults concerning the minors

about eating detestable creatures.

And the Gemara infers:

Is it not

the intention of the verse

that he says to them,

that the adult must say to the minors:

“You shall not eat

detestable creatures”!

And it is proved that a minor who eats carcasses must be separated from them by Torah law.

And the Gemara rejects the proof:

No,

this is not the intention of the verse; rather, it means

that he should not feed him

creeping things

by hand.

Come and hear

from another teaching:

For it was taught:

“No person among you shall eat blood.”

The verse adds the word “every”—

to warn the adults concerning the minors,

about eating blood.

Is it not that they say to them

the adults to the minors:

“You shall not eat

blood”?

And it is proved that the adults are commanded concerning the minors to separate them from performing a prohibition.

And the Gemara rejects:

No,

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

that they should not feed them

the adults to the minors, blood,

by hand.

Come and hear

from another teaching concerning the prohibition of impurity for kohanim:

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

“Say

to the kohanim,

and you shall say

to them.”

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

to warn the adults concerning the minors

about corpse impurity!

Is it not that he says to them,

that one is commanded to prevent the minor kohanim and say to them:

“You shall not become impure!”

And the Gemara rejects the proof:

No,

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

that they should not render them impure

the adult kohanim to the minor kohanim,

by hand.

And they are necessary: three verses in three different matters are needed to teach the prohibition of feeding a minor a prohibition by hand: concerning blood, concerning creeping things, and concerning impurity of kohanim.

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.