Babylonian Talmud: Tractate Shabbath

Folio 107a

GEMARA. R. Abba said in R. Hiyya b. Ashi's name in Rab's name: If a bird creeps under the skirts [of one's garments], he may sit and guard it¹  until evening. R. Nahman b. Isaac objected: IF THE FIRST SITS DOWN IN THE DOORWAY AND FILLS IT, AND A SECOND COMES AND SITS DOWN AT HIS SIDE, EVEN IF THE FIRST [THEN] RISES AND DEPARTS, THE FIRST IS CULPABLE WHILE THE SECOND IS EXEMPT. Surely that means, he IS EXEMPT, yet it is forbidden? — No: he is exempt, bind it is permitted. Reason too supports this: since the second clause teaches, WHAT DOES THIS RESEMBLE? ONE WHO SHUTS HIS HOUSE TO GUARD IT, AND A DEER IS [THEREBY] FOUND TO BE GUARDED THEREIN, it follows that it means, he is EXEMPT, and it is permitted.²  Others state, R. Nahman b. Isaac said: We too learnt thus: EVEN IF THE FIRST [THEN] RISES AND DEPARTS, THE FIRST IS CULPABLE, WHILE THE SECOND IS EXEMPT: surely that means, he IS EXEMPT, and it is permitted? No: he is EXEMPT, yet it is forbidden. But since the second clause states, WHAT DOES THIS RESEMBLE? ONE WHO SHUTS HIS HOUSE TO GUARD IT, AND A DEER IS [THEREBY] FOUND TO BE GUARDED THEREIN, it follows that he is EXEMPT, and it is permitted. This proves it.

Samuel said: Everything [taught as] involving no liability on the Sabbath involves [indeed] no liability, yet is forbidden, save these three, which involve no liability and are permitted. This [sc. the capture of a deer] is one. And how do you know that he is exempt and it is permitted? Because the second clause teaches: WHAT DOES THIS RESEMBLE? ONE WHO SHUTS HIS HOUSE TO GUARD IT, AND A DEER IS THEREBY FOUND TO BE GUARDED THEREIN. A second [is this]: If one manipulates an abscess on the Sabbath, if in order to make an opening for it, he is liable;³  if in order to draw the matter out of it, he is exempt. And how do you know that he is exempt and it is permitted? Because we learnt: A small needle⁴  [may be moved on the Sabbath] for the purpose of extracting a thorn.⁵  And the third: If one catches a snake on the Sabbath: if he is engaged therewith [sc. in catching it] so that it should not bite him,⁶  he is exempt; if for a remedy,⁷  he is liable. And how do you know that he is exempt and it is permitted? — Because we learnt: A dish may be inverted over a lamp, that the beams should not catch [fire], or over an infant's excrements, or over a scorpion, that it should not bite.⁸

CHAPTER XIV

MISHNAH. AS FOR THE EIGHT REPTILES [SHERAZIM] WHICH ARE MENTIONED IN THE TORAH,⁹  HE WHO CATCHES OR WOUNDS THEM [ON THE SABBATH] IS CULPABLE;¹⁰  BUT [AS FOR] OTHER ABOMINATIONS AND CREEPING THINGS,¹¹  HE WHO WOUNDS THEM IS EXEMPT; HE WHO CATCHES THEM, BECAUSE HE NEEDS THEM, HE IS LIABLE; IF HE DOES NOT NEED THEM, HE IS EXEMPT, AS FOR A BEAST OR BIRD IN ONE'S PRIVATE DOMAIN, HE WHO CATCHES IT IS EXEMPT; HE WHO WOUNDS IT IS CULPABLE.

GEMARA. Since he [the Tanna] teaches, HE WHO WOUNDS THEM IS CULPABLE, it follows that they have skin.¹²  Which Tanna [maintains this]? — Said Samuel, It is R. Johanan b. Nuri. For we learnt, R. Johanan b. Nuri said: The eight reptiles have skins.¹³  Rabbah son of R. Huna said in Rab's name, You may even say [that this agrees with] the Rabbis: the Rabbis disagree with R. Johanan b. Nuri only in respect of defilement, because it is written, And these are they which are unclean unto you,¹⁴  extending [the law to teach] that their skins are as their flesh; but in respect to the Sabbath even the Rabbis agree. But do they not differ in respect of the Sabbath? Surely it was taught: He who catches one of the eight reptiles mentioned in the Torah, [or] he who wounds them, is culpable: this is R. Johanan b. Nuri's view. But the Sages maintain: Only those which the Sages enumerated¹⁵  have skin.

1. To prevent it from flying away.
2. For obviously one may lock his house in order to guard it.
3. Rashi: either on account of building an opening, or because of mending, for there is no difference between mending a utensil and mending (i.e., healing) a wound.
4. Lit., 'hand.needle'.
5. Because it pains him, and matter which causes pain is similar.
6. 'Mith'assek' may be understood in the sense of performing indirect labour, i.e., he catches it only incidentally, as he does not need the snake but merely desires to prevent it from dong harm.
7. The snake's poison can be used medicinally.
8. Though it is thereby caught.
9. As unclean, i.e., non-edible; Lev. XI, 29f.
10. These have a skin distinct from the flesh (v. infra), and a wound does not completely heal but leaves a scar; this is regarded as a minor degree of killing, i.e., part of the animal's life is taken away.
11. E.g., worms, insects, snakes, etc.
12. V. n. 2.
13. V. Hul. 122a. The Rabbis rule that the skins of four of these defile by the same standard as their flesh, viz., the size of a lentil. Thus they hold that their skin is not distinct from their flesh, and R. Johanan b. Nuri disputes it.
14. Ibid.
15. As those whose skins are the same as their flesh.

[Whereon it was asked]: On the contrary, Those which the Sages enumerated have no skin?¹  And 'Abaye said, This is what he [the Tanna] states: Only those not enumerated by the Sages have a skin distinct from the flesh.²  Said Raba to him: But he states, which the Sages enumerated? Rather said Raba, This is the meaning: the skin of those [reptiles] only which the Sages enumerated defiles like the flesh.³  Hence it follows that R. Johanan b. Nuri holds that even those which the Sages did not enumerate defile [in this way]? But it is stated, R. Johanan b. Nuri said: The eight reptiles have skins and do not defile? — Rather Said R. Adda b. Mattenah, Reconcile it thus: But the Sages maintain: In respect of defilement those which the Sages enumerated have skin.

Still, however, do they not differ in respect of the Sabbath? But it was taught: He who catches one of the eight reptiles mentioned in the Torah, [or] he who wounds them, is culpable, [viz.,] in the case of the reptiles which have skins.⁴  And what is a wound that does not heal?⁵  If the blood becomes clotted, even if it does not issue. R. Johanan b. Nuri said: The eight reptiles have skins!⁶  — Said R. Ashi, Who is the first Tanna? R. Judah, who maintains that touch is the criterion.⁷  For we learnt, R. Judah said: The halta'ah⁸  is like the weasel. But the Rabbis who disagree with R. Johanan b. Nuri in respect of defilement agree with him in respect of the Sabbath.⁹  If so, instead of 'this is the view of R. Johanan b. Nuri,' 'this is the view of R. Johanan b. Nuri and his opponents' is required?¹⁰  — Learn: 'this is the view of R. Johanan b. Nuri and his opponents.'¹¹

Levi asked Rabbi: How do we know that a wound¹²  is such as is permanent?¹³  — Because it is written, Can the Ethiopian change his skin, or the leopard his spots [habarbarothaw]?¹⁴  What does 'habarbarothaw' mean: shall we say, that it is covered with spots? Then instead of 'and a leopard habarbarothaw,'it should read, 'a leopard gawwanaw [its colours]'? Rather it is parallel to Ethiopian, — just as the skin of an Ethiopian cannot turn, so is a [real] wound one that does not turn [i.e., heal].¹⁵

BUT OTHER ABOMINATIONS, etc. But if one kills them, he is culpable: which Tanna [holds thus]? Said R. Jeremiah, It is R. Eliezer. For it was taught, R. Eliezer said: He who kills vermin on the Sabbath is as though he killed a camel on the Sabbath. R. Joseph demurred to this: The Rabbis disagree with R. Eliezer only in respect to vermin, which does not multiply and increase, but as for other abominations and creeping things, which multiply and increase, they do not differ [therein]. And both learn it from none but the rams.¹⁶  R. Eliezer holds, It is as the rams: just as there was the taking of life in the case of the rams, so whatever constitutes the taking of life [is a culpable offence]. While the Rabbis argue, It is as the rams: just as rams multiply and increase, so are all which multiply and increase [of account].¹⁷  Said Abaye to him, Do not vermin multiply and increase? But a Master said: 'The Holy One, blessed be He, sits and sustains [all creatures], from the horns of wild oxen to the eggs of vermin'?¹⁸  — It is a species called 'eggs of vermin'. But it was taught: Tippuyyi¹⁹  and the eggs of vermin? — The species is called 'eggs of vermin'. But there is the flea, which multiplies and increases, yet it was taught, If one catches a flea on the Sabbath: R. Eliezer declares him liable, while R. Joshua exempts [him]? — Said R. Ashi: You oppose catching to killing! R. Eliezer and R. Joshua disagree only in that one Master holds: If the species is not hunted, one is liable; whilst the other Master holds: He is exempt. But in respect to killing even R. Joshua agrees.

HE WHO CATCHES THEM BECAUSE HE NEEDS THEM, HE IS LIABLE, etc. Which Tanna [rules thus]? — Said Rab Judah in Rab's name: It is R. Simeon, who maintains, One is not culpable on account of a labour unrequired per se.²⁰  Others learn it in reference to this: If one manipulates an abscess on the Sabbath, — if in order to make an opening for it, he is liable; if in order to draw the matter out of it, he is exempt. Which Tanna [rules thus]? Said Rab Judah in Rab's name: It is R. Simeon, who maintains: One is not culpable on account of a labour unrequired per se. Others again learn it in reference to this: If one catches a snake on the Sabbath: if he is engaged therewith [in catching it] so that it should not bite him, he is exempt; if for a remedy, he is liable.²¹  Which Tanna [rules thus]? Said Rab Judah in Rab's name, It is R. Simeon, who maintains: One is not culpable on account of a labour unrequired per se.

Samuel said: If one removes a fish from the sea,²²  as soon as the size of a sela' thereof becomes dry, he is liable.²³  R. Jose b. Abin observed: provided it is between the fins.²⁴  R. Ashi said: Do not think literally dry, but even if it forms slimy threads.²⁵

Mar Bar Hamduri said in Samuel's name: If one inserts his hand in an animal's bowels and detaches an embryo that is inside her, he is culpable. What is the reason? Said Raba: Bar Hamduri explained it to me: Did not R. Shesheth say: If one plucks cuscuta from shrubs and thorns, he is culpable on account of uprooting something from the place of its growth;²⁶  so here too he is culpable on account of uprooting something [sc. the embryo] from the place of its growth. Abaye said: He who plucks

1. Since their skin is the same as their flesh.
2. But those enumerated by them have no skin distinct from the flesh, and consequently wounding them involves no liability. On this interpretation the Rabbis differ even in respect of the Sabbath, which contradicts Rab. But on the following explanations there is no difficulty.
3. V. p. 518, n. 5.
4. I.e., the four not enumerated by the Sages. This shows that they differ even in respect of the Sabbath.
5. I.e., which leaves a permanent discolouring only such entails liability.
6. All involve culpability on the Sabbath.
7. Lit., 'who goes after touch'.
8. A species of lizard.
9. R. Judah holds that the question whether the skin of reptiles is like their flesh or not in the matter of defilement is not settled by deduction from the verse, 'and these are they which are unclean, etc.' (quoted supra a), but is dependent on touch. I.e., if the skin, is thick and perceptibly distinct from the flesh, it is not the same as the flesh; otherwise it is. By this criterion the halta'ah is like the weasel, since both have thick skins; though if the matter were decided by Scriptural exegesis these two would be dissimilar, as is shown in Hul. 142a. Hence he holds that in respect of the Sabbath, too, three of these eight have no skin, i.e., if one wounds them he is not guilty, for the skin is thin and not distinct from the flesh. But the Rabbis in Hul. count the halta'ah as one of the reptiles whose skin is the same as their flesh, in spite of its thickness. This shows that they settle the matter solely by reference to the verse, and therefore their view, which disagrees with R. Johanan b. Nuri's, applies only to defilement, since the verse is written in that connection, but not to the Sabbath.
10. Since the Rabbis agree with him.
11. This is probably not an emendation, but merely implies that it is to be understood thus.
12. For it to involve culpability on the Sabbath.
13. Lit., 'return'.
14. Jer. XIII, 23.
15. On this interpretation namer (E.V. leopard) is derived from mur, to change, and the verse is translated: Can the Ethiopian change his skin, or turn (i.e., heal) his wounds? habarbarothaw (E.V. spots) being derived from haburah, a wound.
16. Which were killed for the sake of their skins, which were dyed red and used in the Tabernacle. Thus killing was a labour of importance in the Tabernacle, and hence ranks as a principal labour; v. supra 49b.
17. In that killing them renders one liable.
18. 'Eggs of vermin is assumed to mean its progeny.
19. Name of certain small insects.
20. V. supra 105b.
21. V. end of last chapter for notes.
22. Rashi and Tosaf. both explain that this refers to a fish that was already caught before the Sabbath, In that case 'from the sea' is un- intelligible. Maim. in Hilchoth Sabbath beginning of ch. XI reads 'from a bowl', which is preferable. V. Marginal Gloss, [Rashi, however, did not seem to read 'from the sea'].
23. For taking life, as it cannot live after that. — There is no culpability for catching, since it was caught before the Sabbath.
24. But a dryness in any other part does not mean that the fish can no longer live.
25. I.e., it becomes partially dry only, so that the moisture adheres to one's finger in slimy threads.
26. But not for detaching from the soil, as cuscuta was not held to be attached to the soil; v. 'Er. 28b,