דף ק"ו

עמוד א

קושייה א

רבי אבהו שנה מברייתא שכל המקמקלין בשבת פטורים, חוץ ממבעיר אש וחובל באדם. רבי יוחנן מתנגד לדעה זו:

וְהָאֲנַן תְּנַן והרי שנינו במשנה: שכׇּל הַמְקַלְקְלִין פְּטוּרִין (כולל המבעירים והחובלים)!

רבי אבהו משיב: את מַתְנִיתִין משנתנו, שנה רַבִּי יְהוּדָה, ואת הבָּרָיְיתָא שנה רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן.

מַאי טַעְמָא מה הטעם של (דְּ)רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן שמחייב את המקלקלין בפציעת אדם?: (הרי כלל בידינו שמילת תינוק דוחה שבת) ולכן, מִדְּאִיצְטְרִיךְ הוצרכה הברייתא קְרָא לומר לְמִישְׁרֵא מִילָה שמותר בשבת לעשות קלקול בחבּוּרה - רק בברית מילה, הָא חוֹבֵל בְּעָלְמָא חַיָּיב אבל זה שחובל אדם אחר סתם, גם אם עשה כדרך קלקול - חייב.

The Gemara asks: How could Rabbi Abbahu teach this baraita? Didn’t we learn explicitly in the mishna: Anyone who performs labors destructively on Shabbat is exempt, including one who inflicts a wound or who kindles a fire? The Gemara answers: In his opinion, the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, who deems one liable for performing labor which is not needed for its own sake, whereas the baraita is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, who exempts in that case. The Gemara explains: What is the reason that Rabbi Shimon deems one who inflicts a wound or kindles a fire on Shabbat liable even though these are destructive acts? From the fact that a verse was necessary to permit circumcision on Shabbat, by inference, in general, one who inflicts a wound is liable. If inflicting a wound was not prohibited on Shabbat, there would be no need to permit circumcision.

הרי כולם מסכימים שמילה היא חבּוּרה. אבל האם מילה היא קלקול?

והרי כתוב במדרש תנחומא שרבי עקיבא אומר שמילת התינוק היא תיקונו בתוך עם ישראל!

וּבַיּוֹם הַשְּׁמִינִי יִמּוֹל. מַעֲשֶׂה שֶׁשָּׁאַל טוּרְנוּסְרוּפוּס הָרָשָׁע אֶת רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא, ....................... אָמַר לוֹ טוּרְנוּסְרוּפוּס, אִם הוּא (הקדוש ברוך הוא) חָפֵץ בַּמִּילָה, לָמָּה אֵינוֹ יוֹצֵא הַוָּלָד מָהוּל מִמְּעֵי אִמּוֹ(?).

אָמַר לוֹ רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא, וְלָמָּה שׁוֹרְרוֹ יוֹצֵא עִמּוֹ וְהוּא תָּלוּי בְּבִטְנוֹ ע"י חבל הטבור וְאִמּוֹ חוֹתְכוֹ וּמַה שֶׁאַתָּה אוֹמֵר לָמָּה אֵינוֹ יוֹצֵא מָהוּל(?), לְפִי הסיבה לכך היא שֶׁלֹּא נָתַן הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא אֶת הַמִּצְוֹת לְיִשְׂרָאֵל אֶלָּא לְצָרֵף אוֹתָם בָּהֶם.

וּלְכָךְ אָמַר דָּוִד, אִמְרַת ה' צְרוּפָה (תהלים יח, לא).

(Lev. 12:3:) “And on the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised.” It is not written here that one lays out expenses over circumcision. See how much Israel loves the commandments, how many expenses they lay out in order to observe them! The Holy One, blessed be He, said, “You make the commandments joyful; I am increasing your joy, as stated (in Is. 29:19), ‘Then the humble shall increase their joy in the Lord.’” Beloved is circumcision, such that the Holy One, blessed be He, swore to Avraham that anyone who is circumcised will not descend to Geihinnom, as stated (Genesis 15:18), “On that day, the Lord made a covenant with Avram, saying.” And who does descend there? See what is written below (Gen. 15:19), “The Kenite, the Kenizzite ….” And so did Ezekiel see, as stated (Ezekiel 32:18-30), “Son of man, wail upon the masses of Egypt and make it descend, and the daughters of mighty nations, to the lowest lands and those that fall in the pit. Who do you surpass in pleasantness, go down and lay with the uncircumcised…. Assyria is there with all of her congregation, its graves are around it…. Meshech and Tubal and all their masses are there, its graves are surrounding it, they are all uncircumcised…. The princes of the North are there….” And so does Isaiah says (Isaiah 5:14), “And so does the pit widen itself and opened wide its mouth without measure (chok),” to he that doesn't have a statute [the words — "without measure" — can also be rendered "to he that doesn't have a statute"]. And where [do we see that] it (the commandment to circumcise) is called a statue? As it says (Ps. 105:10) "And He established it unto Jacob for a statute, to Israel for an everlasting covenant," because the Holy One, blessed be He, placed His name with Israel. And what is the name and the seal that He placed in them? It is Shaddai, the shin is placed on the nose, the dalet on the hand, and the yud on the circumcision. Therefore when he goes to his eternal home, there is an angel appointed in the Garden of Eden who takes him and brings him into the Garden of Eden. And regarding the heretics and sinners, The Holy One, “blessed be He, commands the angel to pull his foreskin (i.e. reverse his circumcision), as it says (Ps. 55:21) "He hath put forth his hands against them that were at peace with him; he has profaned his covenant." It happened that Tyrannus Rufus the wicked asked R. Aqiva, “Which works are the more beautiful? Those of the Holy One, blessed be He, or those of flesh and blood?” He said to him, “Those of flesh and blood are the more beautiful.” Tyrannus Rufus the wicked said to him, “Look at the heavens and the earth. Are you able to make anything like them?” R. Aqiva said to him, “Do not talk to me about something which is high above mortals, things over which they have no control, but about things which are usual among people.” He said to him, “Why do you circumcise?” He said to him, “I also knew that you were going to say this to me. I therefore anticipated [your question] when I said to you, ‘A work of flesh and blood is more beautiful than one of the Holy One, blessed be He.’ Bring me wheat spikes and white bread.” He said to him, “The former is the work of the Holy One, blessed be He, and the latter is the work of flesh and blood. Is not the latter more beautiful?” Tyrannus Rufus said to him, “Inasmuch as He finds pleasure in circumcision, why does no one emerge from his mother's belly circumcised?” R. Aqiva said to him, “And why does his umbilical cord come out on him? Does not his mother cut his umbilical cord? So why does he not come out circumcised? Because the Holy One, blessed be He, only gave Israel the commandments in order to purify them. Therefore, David said (in II Sam. 22:31 = Ps. 18:31), ‘the word of the Lord is pure.’”

רבי שמעון סובר שקלקול הוא רק כלפי דבר גופני. לא לגבי דבר רוחני.


עמוד ב

קושייה ב

משנה: הצד חיה, רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר: לֹא כָּל הַבֵּיבָרִין אזורי המחיה שָׁוִין. זֶה הַכְּלָל:

א. מְחוּסָּר צִידָה אם צד חיה (ע"י סגירתה) באזור שבו יצטרך לרדוף אחריה בכדי לצוד אותה באופן סופי — פָּטוּר,

ב. שֶׁאֵינוֹ מְחוּסָּר צִידָה אם צד חיה (ע"י סגירתה) באזור שאין לה לאיפה להתחמק (כי זהו צידתה הסופי) — חַיָּיב.

and for trapping a deer into a garden, or into a courtyard, or into an enclosure [bivar], he is liable. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: Not all enclosures are identical. This is the principle: If the trapping of the animal is inadequate and it is still necessary to pursue and apprehend it, one is not liable. However, if one trapped a deer into an enclosure in which the trapping is not inadequate, he is liable.

אם אתה "צד" כלב רחוב (שלא מכיר אותך), ואתה שם אותו בגינה שלך (ביבר גדול).

הרי הוא ייברח ממך במידה והוא יחוש בסכנה.

אבל על אותו מטבע, אם תביא לו אוכל טעים - הוא לא יברח ממך.

אז במקרה שבו אתה מביא לו אוכל טעים, ישנה אפשרות שהוא לא יברח (בגלל האוכל) אבל ישנה גם אפשרות שהוא יברח (אם פתאום יחוש בסכנה כלשהי).

השאלה שלי היא מה דין האדם (חייב/לא חייב על צידה) בזמן רגע ה'התלבטות' הזה? כי מאידך יכול לברוח, ומאידך לא יכול לברוח.

הכלב עדיין יכול לברוח, ולכן לא נחשב צידה גמורה ופטור.