Ask A Question about the Daf

Previous daf

Shabbos 107

1) INFLICTING A WOUND UPON A "SHERETZ": "SHOCHET"

QUESTION: RASHI writes that a person is Chayav for Chovel (wounding) done to the eight Sheratzim that have skins, but not for Chovel of the other Sheratzim that do not have skins because by wounding them, their blood goes out (and remains under the skin -- see Tosfos), which is a Toldah of Shochet (Rashi in the name of his Rebbi). If the creature does not have skin, though, and no blood comes forth when its body is bruised, then no blood was ever removed from its place (because if blood was removed from its place, it certainly would have shown).

Why is Chovel considered like Shochet (= Netilas Neshamah)? In what way is inflicting a wound that draws blood considered like killing the creature?

ANSWER: TOSFOS (Kesubos 5b) explains that since "blood is the life-source" ("Ha'Dam Hu ha'Nafesh;" Devarim 12:23), when one causes blood to come out, it is considered as if he is taking [part of] the life of the creature. Once blood forms a clot under skin, it is considered as if part of the life of the creature was taken, because the blood has left its place in the body.

QUESTIONS: Alternatively, Rashi explains that one is Chayav for Chovel because of *Tzovei'a* (dyeing). Since these eight Sheratzim have skin, wounding them causes the color of their skin to turn red because of the blood.

The Rishonim refer to a Gemara in Chulin (46a) that says that if a person is Chovel and thereby removes blood from *any* Sheretz, he is Chayav. Our Mishnah, they explain, is referring to when the creature is bruised but no blood comes out. A number of questions may be asked on this interpretation:

(a) In the Gemara earlier (75b), Rav said that one who slaughters is also Chayav because of Tzovei'a, because a person wants the throat area to be red with blood so that the animal will appear to be freshly slaughtered and will be sold easily. It seems from there that Tzovei'a applies even when done to flesh and not just to skin! Why, then, does Rashi say here that one is Chayav only for wounding the eight Sheratzim that have skin because the skin becomes colored as a result of the wound, and not for wounding other animals that do not have skin? Their flesh becomes colored as a result of the wound!

(b) Second, one is only Chayav for Tzovei'a when he has an interest in coloring the item (such as the animal in the case on 75b). Why should one be Chayav for dyeing the skin of the eight Sheratzim if one has no interest in making the skin red?

(c) Third, the Rishonim ask that if the blood goes out of the animal, one is Chayav for Chovel done even to all other Sheratzim. Why is one Chayav if no skin was dyed?

ANSWER:

(b) In this case, too, the person is interested in coloring the skin of the Sheretz when he inflicts the wound, because he wants to sell the skin. He wants the skin to be red so that when prospective buyers see the redness, they will know that it was killed recently, and that will buy it more readily and at a higher price. This answers the second question.

(c) As for the first and third questions, Rashi agrees that when blood goes out of the body, one will be Chayav for *Shochet*, since he took [part of] the life of the creature. However, when the blood stays in the body under the skin, the blood never really separated from the body, so the only Chiyuv will be Tzovei'a (which applies only when it has skin). This answers the third question.

(a) Furthermore, *inside* the body, there is no coloring of the flesh. It is only possible to color the surface of the flesh. This answers the first question.

QUESTION: The Mishnah says that one is Chayav for capturing only a Sheretz of the eight Sheratzim, because those Sheratzim have skin. Why is one Chayav for Tzeidah only for Sheratzim that have skin?

ANSWERS:

(a) RASHI explains that there are two reasons to be Patur for capturing animals that do not have skin. First, "Ein b'Mino Nitzod" -- those animals are not in the category of animals that are normally captured. Second, it is a Melachah sh'Einah Tzerichah l'Gufah (since one is not capturing them for their skins), and the Mishnah is in accordance with Rebbi Shimon who says that one is Patur for doing a Melachah sh'Einah Tzerichah l'Gufah.

(b) TOSFOS (DH sh'Lo l'Tzorech) and other Rishonim question Rashi's explanation. Why does Rashi need to mention the reason that animals without skin are not the type of animal normally captured? The Gemara (107b) explicitly says that one is Patur because one does not capture them for their own sake (Einah Tzerichah l'Gufah). Also, if one is Patur because this animal is not the type that is normally captured, what difference does it make if one captures it l'Tzorech (in which case the Mishnah says that one is Chayav for capturing all other Sheratzim)?

Therefore, the Rishonim explain that one is Patur solely because it is a Melachah sh'Einah Tzerichah l'Gufah. (Rabeinu Tam went so far as to erase these words from Rashi's explanation, TOSFOS DH she'Lo.)

107b

QUESTION: If one opens a blister (Mefis Mursa) on Shabbos in order to extract pus (the pressure of which is causing him pain), he is Patur. In the Gemara, Rav explains that it is a Melachah sh'Einah Tzerichah l'Gufah and the Mishnah is like Rebbi Shimon who says that one is Patur for doing a Melachah sh'Einah Tzerichah l'Gufah. Shmuel (on 107a) says that it is even permitted l'Chatchilah to open a blister to extract its pus, because the Rabanan permitted one to relieve himself of pain.

Earlier in the Masechta (42a) we saw that Shmuel rules like Rebbi Yehudah, that a Melachah sh'Einah Tzerichah l'Gufah is Chayav. If so, how can he rule that opening a blister to remove the pus is permitted? The Rabanan can only permit one to transgress an Isur d'Rabanan because of pain, not an Isur d'Oraisa!

ANSWERS:

(a) TOSFOS (3a, DH Ha'Tzad) cites RABEINU TAM who answers that Shmuel does not really rule that opening a blister to extract the pus is permitted. Rather, Shmuel was merely stating what *Rebbi Shimon* would maintain with regard to opening a blister to remove the pus.

(b) The MAGID MISHNAH (Hilchos Shabbos 10:17) explains that according to Shmuel, one who opens a blister is not doing a Melachah sh'Einah Tzerichah l'Gufah. Rather, he is not doing a Melachah at all. By opening a blister for therapeutic purposes, one *completes* the formation of the blister (and if one's intention is to complete the blister, he is Chayav for Makeh b'Patish). According to Shmuel, if he does it to extract the pus, it is not Makeh b'Patish *at all*, since nothing was "finished," and no Melachah was done. It is therefore permissible l'Chatchilah (because of the pain one is experiencing) even according to Rebbi Yehudah.

(c) According to RASHI (107a, DH Chayav), also, letting out the puss does not involve a Melachah *at all*. Rashi explains that if he opens the blister in order to make an opening (lit. "mouth"), he is Chayav either because of Boneh or because of Mesaken Kli. Boneh applies only when one makes a hole to be used for putting things in and for taking things out. However, when one makes a hole in his blister to let out the pus, he does not care if the hole closes right away when he is finished (Rashi 107b DH l'Hotzi). Consequently, he is not making a hole used to put things in and take things out, and he is Patur since *no Boneh* (or Tikun) has been accomplished at all.

(Rashi and the Magid Mishnah understand that Shmuel argues with the Gemara on 107b and maintains that the permissibility of Mefis Mursa has nothing to do with Rebbi Shimon and Melachah sh'Einah Tzerichah l'Gufah.)