תלמוד על שבת 13:1

HALAKHAH: 3. They asked before Rebbi Abba: Just as you are saying there⁴²Tosephta Pesaḥim 5:7, Menaḥot 5:3., “one who slaughtered his purification sacrifice on the Sabbath did atone but has to bring another one⁴³For the unintentional Sabbath violation.,” so one should say also here⁴⁴It is a rabbinic obligation to tear one’s clothes in mourning for a close relative. The question is whether such tearing, which in Mishnah 3 is declared not to induce liability for a purification sacrifice, satisfies the duty of tearing or whether another tearing will be needed after the end of the Sabbath., he did not accomplish his tearing. But it⁴⁵Mishnah 3. The implication is that R. Jehudah would declare the person tearing his clothes a Sabbath violator since he declares liable for a Sabbath violation even if no particular intent was satisfied. must follow Rebbi Simeon, since Rebbi Simeon said, only if he needed the thing itself. He told them, there he caused it himself⁴⁶By unintentional sinning he created the liability for a sacrifice., but here you caused it to him⁴⁷Either this means that the relative caused it by dying or the rabbis caused it by decreeing the duty to tear one’s clothes.. Rebbi Yose said, and even there you caused it to him for had you not told him to come⁴⁸Since a purification sacrifice cannot be brought voluntarily, the priests’ court has to confirm his liability. how could it be atoning? Is there need to say that it follows Rebbi Simeon⁴⁹The Mishnah may as well be R. Jehudah’s who also will agree that damaging actions are not sanctionable on the Sabbath.?

HALAKHAH: 5⁶⁰This paragraph, referring to Mishnah 5, is a copy from Halakhah Beṣah 3:1. The references to the Mishnah Beṣah as “there” are almost correct.. Rebbi Ḥinena said, our Mishnah⁶¹The Mishnah in Beṣah. dos not follow Rebbi Jehudah, as we have stated: “⁶²Mishnah 5 here, a statement of R. Jehudah. one who catches a bird for a cage or a deer for a house is liable;” therefore for a garden or a vivarium he is not liable⁷The Mishnaic word is a transcription of the Latin.
Animals trapped in a house are effectively caught. Animals held in a large enough vegetable garden or vivarium still have a chance to evade being grabbed.. The argument of Rebbi Jehudah is inverted since we have stated there⁶³Mishnah Beṣah 3:1, an anonymous statement.: “one does not catch fish from vivaria, one does not feed them,” therefore for a garden or a vivarium he is not liable? The argument of the rabbis is inverted, as we have stated: “but the Sages say, a bird for a cage and a deer for a garden, or a courtyard, or a vivarium,” and we have stated there⁶³Mishnah Beṣah 3:1, an anonymous statement., “but one catches wild animals and fowl from vivaria and feeds them,” therefore not for a garden or a vivarium⁶⁴How can the rabbis forbid catching a deer in a vegetable garden as a Sabbath violation but allow it on a holiday? This contradicts the statement (Mishnah Megillah 1:5) that the only difference between prohibited work on Sabbath and Holiday refers to the preparation of food. It is explained in Beṣah that preparation of meat starts with slaughter; anything preceding this is not exempt from the prohibition of work.? One for a covered courtyard, the other for a courtyard which is not covered⁶⁵A courtyard covered by a roof is a house. The Babli 106b, Beṣah 24a restricts this answer to vivaria.. But did we not state “a garden”? Can you say a covered garden⁶⁶Nothing would grow in a vegetable garden devoid of sunlight. The answer cannot be correct.? But here a large one, there a small one⁶⁷A small garden is one where the deer can be taken without effort, a large one where one has to use tools to catch the deer; Babli 106b, Beṣah 24a. The question now arises how to define “small” and “large” for practical application.. Rebbi Ulla said, they asked before Rebbi Aḥa, how should one state? In any case where catching is still missing one is liable, but if catching is not missing one is not liable⁶⁸This discussion refers to the last statement in Mishnah Beṣah 3:1. Should one say that for large vivaria, taking animals on a holiday is a biblical violation even though this seems to contradict the formulation of the first part Mishnah Beṣah 3:1.? He answered them, do we not deal with the case that he corrals them into it? But “in any case where catching is still missing it is forbidden, but if catching is not missing it is permitted”⁶⁹This is the traditional formulation of the last statement in Mishnah Beṣah 3:1 in the name of Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel, in contrast to the formulation in Šabbat 13:5. The prohibition is rabbinic since animals in a corral are no longer wild. The next statement translates the criterion into a practical rule. The Babli Beṣah 24a has a different rule.. Rebbi Samuel, Rebbi Berekhiah’s brother, said: any which needs nets needs catching, what does not need nets does not need catching.

There, we have stated:¹³³Mishnah 13:4. “The measure for one who bleaches, who beats flax, or who dyes, or who spins,” and here you are saying so? The one who dyes, here one who brings out to dye¹³⁴The amount noted in Mishnah 9:5 is much smaller than than given in Mishnah 13:4. The activities in question are not comparable..