Previous daf

1)

(a) If a bird flies into one's coat on Shabbos, and becomes trapped there, one is not obligated to set it free.

(b) If one is not obligated to set the bird free, then why does our Mishnah write that the second person (who remained seated after the first one - who trapped the deer in the first place - gets up) is Patur - implying that he is forbidden mi'de'Rabbanan to remain seated?

(c) The Gemara proves that Patur must mean Patur u'Mutar, because of the comparison to someone who closes the door of his house, and then discovers a deer trapped in the house. It is obvious that he has no obligation to open the door and set the deer free.

(a) Mefis Mursa is Patur u'Mutar - if one's intention is to extract the pus; but Chayav if his intention is to make an opening in order to let air in.

(b) Patur there too, *must* mean Mutar Lechatchilah, since we have learnt in a Mishnah (in 'Kol ha'Kelim') that one may pick up a hand-needle to remove a splinter (which, like a boil with pus, is permitted - due to the fact that his intention is not to make an opening, but to remove the splinter). Clearly then, this is permitted on Shabbos.

(c) The third case of Patur u'Mutar - is that of 'ha'Tzad Nachash be'Shabbos - Im Mis'asek Bo she'Lo Yishchenu, Patur. Here too, the Tana must mean Patur u'Mutar, since a Mishnah in Kirah teaches that one is permitted to overturn a dish to cover a scorpion, to prevent it from stinging).

3)

(a) Someone who traps any of the eight species of Sheratzim is Chayav, regardless, since they are normally trapped for their skins; and one is also Chayav for wounding it - whereas one is Patur for wounding any of the other Sheratzim, and, as for trapping, one is Chayav if he actually needs it, but otherwise, Patur.

(b) Making a wound is Chayav, either because of Shochet or because of dyeing (on account of the skin becoming dyed thereby increasing the selling value of the creature).

(c) Since the Tana of our Mishnah renders one Chayav for wounding the eight Sheratzim, he must hold that they have skin. This appears to conform with the the opinion of Rebbi Yochanan ben Nuri, who maintains that, unlike their flesh, their skin is not Mekabel Tum'ah; whereas, according to the Rabbanan, one k'Adashah of 'skin' of a hedgehog, a chameleon, a lizard and a snail (it is unclear why Rashi omits a mole, which is contained in the same Pasuk)*is* Mekabel Tum'ah - just like the flesh - suggesting that they have no skin.

(d) The Gemara concludes however, that it is only regarding Tum'ah, that the Rabbanan give the skin the Din of flesh (because of the Pasuk "*Eileh* *ha*'Teme'im Lachem" - the extra 'Hey' to include the skin of those four Sheratzim in Tum'as Basar, and "Eileh" to preclude the three mentioned in the earlier Pasuk - i.e. the weasel, the mouse and the ferret). But regarding the Din of Shabbos, where there is no Pasuk, the Rabbanan agree with Rebbi Yochanan ben Nuri, that none of the eight Sheratzim, really have skin.

4)

(a) How can the Rabbanan quote the Chachamim as saying 'Ein Or Ela le'Mah she'Manu Chachamim'? On the contrary, the four Sheratzim listed by the Chachamim have *no* skin (since they say there 'Oroseihen ki'Besaran')? So the Gemara tries to amend the statement to read 'Ein Or Chaluk me'Basar Ela le'Mah she'*Lo* Manu Chachamim.

(b) If the Chachamim say 'Ein Or Ela le'Mah she'Manu Chachamim', then we can infer that, according to Rebbi Yochanan ben Nuri, even those Sheratzim *not* listed by the Chachamim, are Metamei ke'Adashah. But how can that be? Rebbi Yochanan ben Nuri said with regard to Tum'ah, that all eight Sheratzim do have skin, and that they are therefore not Metamei?

(c) The author of the Beraisa, which writes that only someone who wounds one of the four Sheratzim which have skin, is Chayav, is not the Rabbanan, but Rebbi Yehudah, who does not learn from "Eileh ha'Temei'im". According to him, the Din of Tum'ah depends entirely upon whether the Sheretz has thick skin or not: If it has, then it is *not* Metamei; if it has *not*, then it *is* Metamei, just like its flesh. And the same principle will apply by Shabbos: if it has thick skin, then someone who bruises it will be Chayav, since the blood will not become re-absorbed into the flesh; whereas, if it does *not*, then he will be Patur, since the blood simply becomes re-absorbed into the flesh.

(d) Yes! one is Chayav for bruising a person.

6)

(a) From "Eileh", Rebbi Yehudah includes all those Sheratzim which do not have thick skin i.e. the hedgehog, the chameleon and the snail.

(b) The basis of the Machlokes between Rebbi Yehudah and the Rabbanan lies in what they include from "*Eileh* ha'Temei'im Lachem". The Rabbanan include all the Sheratzim mentioned in the Pasuk before "Eileh", even the lizard - despite the fact that it has thick skin. In other words, it is a Gezeiras ha'Kasuv, that all of these five Sheratzim have the Din of Basar regarding Tum'ah (exclusively); whereas according to Rebbi Yehudah, "Eileh" comes to include those which have *thin* skin - but not the lizard, whose skin is thick; These four Sheratzim have the Din of flesh, both as regards Tum'ah and as regards Shabbos.

(a) We learn from the Pasuk in Yirmiyah "ha'Yahafoch Kushi Oro, ve'Namer Chabarburasov" - that in the same way as the skin of a black native cannot be changed, so too, a wound is only considered a wound if it does not heal (the Navi is not referring to a tiger's spots at all).

(b) The latter phrase cannot be understood literally, because then, the Pasuk should have said, instead of "ve'Namer Chabarburosav", "ve'Namer Gevanav".

(a) Rav Yirmiyah established our Mishnah like Rebbi Eliezer, who holds that someone who kills a louse on Shabbos, is Chayav as if he had killed a camel.

(b) The Gemara however, goes on to establish the Mishnah even like the Rabbanan, who argue with Rebbi Eliezer only by a louse, because it does not reproduce; but by other Sheratzim, they will agree with him, that one is Chayav for killing them.

(c) Rebbi Eliezer learns from the Shechitah of the rams in the Mishkan - that one is Chayav for taking a life (irrespective of whether it was born from parents or in some other way). The Rabbanan learn from the rams, that one is only Chayav for killing an animal which was born by the natural reproductive process - like the rams were.

(a) The Gemara in Avodah Zarah (3b.), which states that Hashem feeds all creatures - 'mi'Karnei Re'eimim ad Beitzei Kinim' - is not a contradiction to the statement that lice do not reproduce, because 'Beitzei Kinim' does not mean lice-eggs, but it is the name of a small species of lice.

(b) The Rabbanan, are Mechayev someone who *kills* Sheratzim that reproduce, whereas Rebbi Yehoshua exempts someone who *traps* a flea, because fleas are not normally trapped.

(a) The author of our Mishnah, which rules that someone who traps Sheratzim which are not needed, is Patur - must be Rebbi Shimon, who holds 'Melachah she'Einah Tzerichah le'Gufah, Patur'.

(b) The third Mishnah (in Eduyos) which must go like Rebbi Shimon - is 'ha'Tzad Nachash be'Shabbos, Im Mis'asek Bo she'Lo Yishchenu, Patur' (u'Mutar). According to Rebbi Yehudah, he will be Chayav, and the Rabbanan would have no authority to waive an Isur d'Oraysa - in the way that they waive an Isur de'Rabbanan, according to Rebbi Shimon.

(a) Someone who removes a fish from the sea - is Chayav because of Netilas Neshamah, as soon as an area the size of a Sela (coin) by its fins, turns dry.

(b) Rav Ashi explains that 'dry' will refer even if slime comes away with one's finger, when one touches it between its fins.

(c) One is Chayav for placing one's hand in the womb of an animal and moving a fetus - for the same reason that one is Chayav for removing the fish from the sea -its source of growth. The source for this is Rav Sheshes, who says that, someone who picks hops from bushes (where they grow from the smell of the ground, in similar fashion to mushrooms), is Chayav.

(d) A mushroom grows naturally from a barrel, whereas a plant does not grow naturally from a plant-pot without a hole. Consequently, one will be Chayav for the former, but Patur for the latter.