דְּבַר טְלֵי וְטַלְיָא וְלִיטַיְּילוּ הָתָם דְּאִי מַשְׁכְּחִי לְהוּ מַיְיתֵי לְהוּ אַלְמָא קָסָבַר קָטָן אוֹכֵל נְבֵלוֹת אֵין בֵּית דִּין מְצֻוִּוין לְהַפְרִישׁוֹ לֵימָא מְסַיַּיע לֵיהּ לֹא יֹאמַר אָדָם לְתִינוֹק הָבֵא לִי מַפְתֵּחַ הָבֵא לִי חוֹתָם אֶלָּא מַנִּיחוֹ תּוֹלֵשׁ מַנִּיחוֹ זוֹרֵק and lead boys and girls and let them walk there where the keys were lost, and if they find the keys they will bring them to you of their own accord, without you saying anything to them. The Gemara comments: Apparently, Rabbi Pedat maintains that with regard to a minor who eats meat from unslaughtered animals or violates other prohibitions, the court is not commanded to prevent him from doing so. The Gemara comments: Let us say that the following source supports his opinion: A person may not tell a child on Shabbat: Bring me a key, or: Bring me my seal from the public domain. However, he may allow the child to detach plants and allow him to throw in the public domain. This shows that one need not be strict with a child who transgresses a prohibition, but one may not tell a child to transgress a prohibition.
אָמַר אַבָּיֵי תּוֹלֵשׁ בְּעָצִיץ שֶׁאֵינוֹ נָקוּב זוֹרֵק בְּכַרְמְלִית דְּרַבָּנַן The Gemara rejects this suggestion: Abaye said that this is no proof, as it is possible that detaching plants is referring to an unperforated flowerpot, as the prohibition against detaching plants from a vessel of this kind applies by rabbinic law. Similar, when it states: Throw, this can be referring to throwing in a karmelit rather than the public domain. A karmelit is an intermediate domain between public and private domains, which has the status of a public domain by rabbinic law. However, perhaps one is obligated to stop the child if he is transgressing a Torah prohibition.
תָּא שְׁמַע גּוֹי שֶׁבָּא לְכַבּוֹת אֵין אוֹמְרִים לוֹ כַּבֵּה וְאַל תְּכַבֶּה מִפְּנֵי שֶׁאֵין שְׁבִיתָתוֹ עֲלֵיהֶם קָטָן הַבָּא לְכַבּוֹת אוֹמְרִים לוֹ אַל תְּכַבֶּה שֶׁשְּׁבִיתָתוֹ עֲלֵיהֶם The Gemara further suggests: Come and hear the following statement (Shabbat 121a): If a gentile comes to extinguish a Jew’s fire on Shabbat, one may not say to him: Extinguish, or: Do not extinguish, because responsibility for his rest is not incumbent upon the Jew. However, if a Jewish child comes to extinguish a fire on Shabbat, they do say to him: Do not extinguish, despite the fact that he is not yet obligated in mitzva observance, because responsibility for his rest is incumbent upon the Jew. This shows that one must prevent a minor from violating a Torah prohibition.
אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בְּעוֹשֶׂה עַל דַּעַת אָבִיו דִּכְווֹתֵיהּ גַּבֵּי גּוֹי דְּעוֹשֶׂה עַל דַּעַת יִשְׂרָאֵל מִי שְׁרֵי גּוֹי אַדַּעְתָּא דְּנַפְשֵׁיהּ עָבֵיד Rabbi Yoḥanan said: This is referring to a minor who is acting with his father’s consent. Even if the father did not tell him explicitly what to do, the child is aware of his father’s wishes, and acts on his behalf. The Gemara asks: The same reasoning can be applied with regard to a gentile, that he acts with the Jew’s consent, and yet in this case is it permitted for him to perform labor on behalf of a Jew? The Gemara answers: A gentile acts in accordance with his own wishes. As an adult he is responsible for his own decisions and is not considered to be following the instructions of others.
תָּא שְׁמַע בֶּן חָבֵר שֶׁרָגִיל לֵילֵךְ אֵצֶל אֲבִי אִמּוֹ עַם הָאָרֶץ אֵין חוֹשְׁשִׁין שֶׁמָּא יַאֲכִילֶנּוּ דְּבָרִים שֶׁאֵינָם מְתוּקָּנִים מָצָא בְּיָדוֹ פֵּירוֹת אֵין זָקוּק לוֹ אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בִּדְמַאי הֵקֵילּוּ Come and hear: The son of a ḥaver, one who is devoted to the meticulous observance of mitzvot, especially the halakhot of ritual purity, teruma, and tithes, is accustomed to going to his mother’s father, who is an ignoramus and therefore is not known to be as careful to separate teruma and tithes. In this case, the son need not be concerned lest his grandfather feed him food items that are not tithed. If the father found fruit in the child’s hand, and he does not know where the fruit is from, he is not bound to separate tithes from the fruit. This indicates that one need not prevent a minor from eating forbidden food. Rabbi Yoḥanan said: The Sages were lenient with regard to doubtfully tithed produce [demai]. Since the prohibition against eating this produce applies only due to doubt, and most ignoramuses do separate tithes, the Sages were lenient in uncertain cases of this kind.
אֶלָּא טַעְמָא דִּדְמַאי הָא וַדַּאי בְּעָא לְעַשּׂוֹרֵי וְהָאָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בְּעוֹשֶׂה עַל דַּעַת אָבִיו אֶלָּא רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן סַפּוֹקֵי מְסַפְּקָא לֵיהּ קָאֵי הָכָא מְדַחֵי קָאֵי הָכָא מְדַחֵי The Gemara infers: Rather, the reason that the Sages were lenient is that it is demai, from which it may be inferred that if it was definitely untithed, the father would be required to tithe the fruit. But didn’t Rabbi Yoḥanan himself say that one need stop a minor only when he is acting with his father’s consent? Rather, Rabbi Yoḥanan is uncertain with regard to this halakha, and therefore in this case he refutes it, and in that case he refutes it. In other words, he reached no definite conclusion about this matter, and therefore he treats each case on its own merits.
תָּא שְׁמַע בֶּן חָבֵר כֹּהֵן שֶׁרָגִיל לֵילֵךְ אֵצֶל אֲבִי אִמּוֹ כֹּהֵן עַם הָאָרֶץ אֵין חוֹשְׁשִׁין שֶׁמָּא יַאֲכִילֶנּוּ תְּרוּמָה טְמֵאָה מָצָא בְּיָדוֹ פֵּירוֹת אֵין זָקוּק לוֹ בִּתְרוּמָה דְּרַבָּנַן Come and hear: With regard to the son of a ḥaver priest who is accustomed to going to his mother’s father, a priest who is also an ignoramus, one need not be concerned lest his grandfather feed him ritually impure teruma. If the father found fruit in the child’s hand, he is not bound to take it from him. This shows that even when the concern involves ritually impure teruma, which is a Torah prohibition, one is not required to ensure that a minor does not sin. The Gemara rejects this: This is no proof, as this is referring to teruma that is separated by rabbinic law, not a doubt concerning a Torah prohibition.
תָּא שְׁמַע יוֹנֵק תִּינוֹק וְהוֹלֵךְ מִגּוֹיָה וּמִבְּהֵמָה טְמֵאָה וְאֵין חוֹשְׁשִׁין בְּיוֹנֵק שֶׁקֶץ וְלֹא יַאֲכִילֶנּוּ נְבֵלוֹת וּטְרֵפוֹת שְׁקָצִים וּרְמָשִׂים וּמִכּוּלָּן יוֹנֵק מֵהֶם וַאֲפִילּוּ בַּשַּׁבָּת וּבְגָדוֹל אָסוּר אַבָּא שָׁאוּל אוֹמֵר נוֹהֲגִין הָיִינוּ שֶׁיּוֹנְקִים מִבְּהֵמָה טְהוֹרָה בְּיוֹם טוֹב Come and hear: A child may regularly suckle from a gentile woman; and a child may suckle from a non-kosher animal. And in both cases one need not be concerned that he might be considered one who suckles from a detestable creature. But one may not feed a child unslaughtered animal carcasses, or animals with wounds that will cause the animals to die within twelve months [tereifot], or repugnant creatures, or creeping animals. A child may suckle from all these, including the non-kosher creatures, even on Shabbat, but in the case of an adult, it is prohibited for him to suckle on Shabbat even from a kosher animal. Abba Shaul says: We were accustomed to suckle from a kosher animal on a Festival, rather than milk it by hand, in the usual way.
קָתָנֵי מִיהָא אֵין חוֹשְׁשִׁין בְּיוֹנֵק שֶׁקֶץ הָתָם מִשּׁוּם סַכָּנָה אִי הָכִי גָּדוֹל נָמֵי In any event, this tanna teaches that one need not be concerned that he might be considered one who suckles from a detestable creature, which indicates that a child may be left to eat forbidden food. The Gemara rejects this: There, permission is granted due to a danger, because a child must eat. The Gemara asks: If so, it should also be permitted for an adult, as saving a human life supersedes these prohibitions.
גָּדוֹל בָּעֵי אוּמְדָּנָא קָטָן נָמֵי לִיבְעֵי אוּמְדָּנָא אָמַר רַב הוּנָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב יְהוֹשֻׁעַ סְתָם תִּינוֹק מְסוּכָּן אֵצֶל חָלָב The Gemara answers: An adult requires consultation, i.e., doctors or other experts must examine him and establish that he is dangerously ill. The Gemara retorts: A minor should also require consultation as to whether he is in danger. Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, said: There is no need for a special consultation, as in an unspecified case a child is in danger with regard to milk. It can be assumed that a child needs milk, and if he does not get it, he will be in danger.
אַבָּא שָׁאוּל אוֹמֵר נוֹהֲגִין הָיִינוּ שֶׁיּוֹנְקִים מִבְּהֵמָה טְהוֹרָה בְּיוֹם טוֹב הֵיכִי דָּמֵי אִי דְּאִיכָּא סַכָּנָה אֲפִילּוּ בְּשַׁבָּת נָמֵי וְאִי דְּלֵיכָּא סַכָּנָה אֲפִילּוּ בְּיוֹם טוֹב אָסוּר לָא צְרִיכָא דְּאִיכָּא צַעֲרָא The Gemara analyzes the last opinion in the above baraita. Abba Shaul says: We were accustomed to suckle from a kosher animal on a Festival. The Gemara inquires: What are the circumstances? If there is imminent danger to a person, even on Shabbat it should also be permitted. And if there is no danger, even on a Festival it should be prohibited. The Gemara answers: No, it is necessary in a case where there is suffering, i.e., they suffer from thirst but no danger is involved.
וְקָסָבַר מְפָרֵק כִּלְאַחַר יָד הוּא שַׁבָּת דְּאִיסּוּר סְקִילָה גְּזַרוּ רַבָּנַן יוֹם טוֹב דְּאִיסּוּר לָאו לָא גְּזַרוּ בֵּיהּ רַבָּנַן The Gemara explains: And Abba Shaul holds that sucking directly from an animal is considered the prohibited labor of extracting performed in an unusual manner. It is prohibited to remove food from a source that is not fit for consumption. However, in this case he does not do so in the usual way of milking, but by sucking, and therefore it is prohibited by rabbinic law. Consequently, on Shabbat, when it is a prohibition punishable by stoning, the Sages issued a decree in this case, even if the milking is done in an unusual manner. Conversely, with regard to a Festival, when labor is a negative prohibition that is not punishable by stoning, the Sages did not issue a decree in a situation that involves suffering. In any case, this source offers no proof with respect to how to treat a child who transgresses.
תָּא שְׁמַע לֹא תֹאכְלוּם כִּי שֶׁקֶץ הֵם לֹא תַּאֲכִילוּם לְהַזְהִיר הַגְּדוֹלִים עַל הַקְּטַנִּים מַאי לָאו דְּאָמַר לְהוּ לֹא תֵּאכְלוּ לָא דְּלָא לִיסְפּוֹ לֵיהּ בְּיָדַיִם Come and hear: The verse states, with regard to creeping animals and other non-kosher animals: “You shall not eat them [tokhlum] for they are a detestable thing” (Leviticus 11:42). The Sages interpret this verse as though it said ta’akhilum, do not feed them to others. The verse comes to warn adults concerning minors, i.e., not only is it prohibited for adults to eat these items themselves, they may also not feed them to minors. What, is it not the case that this means adults must say to children: Do not eat, and prevent them from transgressing? The Gemara rejects this explanation: No, it means that an adult may not feed the minor non-kosher food directly by direct action, but this does not prove that one must stop a child from eating non-kosher food of his own accord.
תָּא שְׁמַע כׇּל נֶפֶשׁ מִכֶּם לֹא תֹאכַל דָּם לְהַזְהִיר הַגְּדוֹלִים עַל הַקְּטַנִּים מַאי לָאו דְּאָמְרִי לְהוּ לֹא תֵּאכְלוּ לָא דְּלָא לִיסְפּוֹ לְהוּ בְּיָדַיִם Come and hear, as the verse states: “No soul of you shall eat blood” (Leviticus 17:12). This serves to warn adults concerning minors. What, is it not the case that this means adults must say to children: Do not eat blood? The Gemara responds: No, here, too, it means that an adult may not feed minors by direct action.
תָּא שְׁמַע אֱמוֹר וְאָמַרְתָּ לְהַזְהִיר גְּדוֹלִים עַל הַקְּטַנִּים מַאי לָאו דְּאָמַר לְהוּ לָא תִּיטַּמּוֹ לָא דְּלָא לִיטַמּוֹ לְהוּ בְּיָדַיִם Come and hear, as the verse states: “Speak to the priests, the sons of Aaron, and say to them: None shall become impure for the dead among his people” (Leviticus 21:1). This reiteration of “speak” and “and say” comes to warn adults concerning minors. What, is it not the case that this means adults must say to children: Do not become impure? The Gemara rejects this: No, it is possible to interpret that an adult should not render children impure by direct action.
וּצְרִיכִי דְּאִי אַשְׁמְעִינַן שְׁקָצִים The Gemara adds: And all these three cases are necessary, despite the fact that they apparently teach the same halakha, i.e., that adults may not feed minors forbidden food. As, had the tanna taught us only the case of repugnant creatures,