Save "בל תשחית
"
בל תשחית

(יט) כִּֽי־תָצ֣וּר אֶל־עִיר֩ יָמִ֨ים רַבִּ֜ים לְֽהִלָּחֵ֧ם עָלֶ֣יהָ לְתׇפְשָׂ֗הּ לֹֽא־תַשְׁחִ֤ית אֶת־עֵצָהּ֙ לִנְדֹּ֤חַ עָלָיו֙ גַּרְזֶ֔ן כִּ֚י מִמֶּ֣נּוּ תֹאכֵ֔ל וְאֹת֖וֹ לֹ֣א תִכְרֹ֑ת כִּ֤י הָֽאָדָם֙ עֵ֣ץ הַשָּׂדֶ֔ה לָבֹ֥א מִפָּנֶ֖יךָ בַּמָּצֽוֹר׃ (כ) רַ֞ק עֵ֣ץ אֲשֶׁר־תֵּדַ֗ע כִּֽי־לֹא־עֵ֤ץ מַאֲכָל֙ ה֔וּא אֹת֥וֹ תַשְׁחִ֖ית וְכָרָ֑תָּ וּבָנִ֣יתָ מָצ֗וֹר עַל־הָעִיר֙ אֲשֶׁר־הִ֨וא עֹשָׂ֧ה עִמְּךָ֛ מִלְחָמָ֖ה עַ֥ד רִדְתָּֽהּ׃ {פ}

(1) When you take the field against your enemies, and see horses and chariots—forces larger than yours—have no fear of them, for the LORD your God, who brought you from the land of Egypt, is with you. (2) Before you join battle, the priest shall come forward and address the troops. (3) He shall say to them, “Hear, O Israel! You are about to join battle with your enemy. Let not your courage falter. Do not be in fear, or in panic, or in dread of them. (4) For it is the LORD your God who marches with you to do battle for you against your enemy, to bring you victory.” (5) Then the officials shall address the troops, as follows: “Is there anyone who has built a new house but has not dedicated it? Let him go back to his home, lest he die in battle and another dedicate it. (6) Is there anyone who has planted a vineyard but has never harvested it? Let him go back to his home, lest he die in battle and another harvest it. (7) Is there anyone who has paid the bride-price for a wife, but who has not yet married her? Let him go back to his home, lest he die in battle and another marry her.” (8) The officials shall go on addressing the troops and say, “Is there anyone afraid and disheartened? Let him go back to his home, lest the courage of his comrades flag like his.” (9) When the officials have finished addressing the troops, army commanders shall assume command of the troops. (10) When you approach a town to attack it, you shall offer it terms of peace.-b (11) If it responds peaceably and lets you in, all the people present there shall serve you at forced labor. (12) If it does not surrender to you, but would join battle with you, you shall lay siege to it; (13) and when the LORD your God delivers it into your hand, you shall put all its males to the sword. (14) You may, however, take as your booty the women, the children, the livestock, and everything in the town—all its spoil—and enjoy the use of the spoil of your enemy, which the LORD your God gives you. (15) Thus you shall deal with all towns that lie very far from you, towns that do not belong to nations hereabout. (16) In the towns of the latter peoples, however, which the LORD your God is giving you as a heritage, you shall not let a soul remain alive. (17) No, you must proscribe them—the Hittites and the Amorites, the Canaanites and the Perizzites, the Hivites and the Jebusites—as the LORD your God has commanded you, (18) lest they lead you into doing all the abhorrent things that they have done for their gods and you stand guilty before the LORD your God. (19) When in your war against a city you have to besiege it a long time in order to capture it, you must not destroy its trees, wielding the ax against them. You may eat of them, but you must not cut them down. Are trees of the field human to withdraw before you into the besieged city? (20) Only trees that you know do not yield food may be destroyed; you may cut them down for constructing siegeworks against the city that is waging war on you, until it has been reduced.
Si tu es arrêté longtemps au siège d’une ville que tu attaques pour t’en rendre maître, tu ne dois cependant pas en détruire les arbres en portant sur eux la cognée: ce sont eux qui te nourrissent, tu ne dois pas les abattre. Oui, l’arbre du champ c’est l’être humain même, tu l’épargneras dans les travaux du siège. Seulement, l’arbre que tu sauras n’être pas un arbre fruitier, celui-là tu peux le sacrifier et l’abattre, pour l’employer à des travaux de siège contre la ville qui est en guerre avec toi, jusqu'à ce qu'elle succombe.

שְׁמוּאֵל צַלַּחוּ לֵיהּ תַּכְתָּקָא דְשָׁאגָא, רַב יְהוּדָה צַלַּחוּ לֵיהּ פָּתוּרָא דְיוֹנָה, לְרַבָּה צַלַּחוּ לֵיהּ שַׁרְשִׁיפָא. וַאֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי לְרַבָּה: וְהָא קָעָבַר מָר מִשּׁוּם ״בַּל תַּשְׁחִית״! אֲמַר לֵיהּ: ״בַּל תַּשְׁחִית״ דְּגוּפַאי עֲדִיף לִי.

I need Shabbat to be desecrated, or whether she did not say: I need Shabbat to be desecrated, one does not desecrate Shabbat for her. That is how Rav Ashi taught it. This is how Mar Zutra taught it: Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: With regard to a woman in childbirth, as long as the womb is open, whether she said: I need Shabbat to be desecrated, or whether she did not say: I need Shabbat to be desecrated, one desecrates Shabbat for her. Once the womb closed after birth, if she said: I need Shabbat to be desecrated, one desecrates Shabbat for her. If she did not say: I need Shabbat to be desecrated, and all the more so if she said: I do not need Shabbat to be desecrated, one does not desecrate Shabbat for her. Ravina said to Mareimar: Since Mar Zutra teaches leniently, and Rav Ashi teaches stringently, in accordance with whose opinion is the halakha? Mareimar said to him: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Mar Zutra, based on the following principle: In cases of uncertainty concerning a life-threatening situation, the halakha is lenient. With regard to the matter of the open womb, the Gemara asks: From when is it considered that the opening of the womb has begun? Abaye says: It begins from when the woman sits on the travailing chair. Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, said: It begins from when the blood flows and descends; and others say when her friends need to carry her by her arms, as she can no longer walk on her own. The Gemara asks: Until when does the opening of the womb continue? Abaye said: It lasts three days. Rava said in the name of Rav Yehuda: It lasts seven days. And others say: It lasts thirty days. The Sages of Neharde’a say: For a woman in childbirth, there are halakhic distinctions between three, seven, and thirty days after she gives birth. The Gemara elaborates: During the first three days after birth, whether she said: I need Shabbat to be desecrated, or whether she did not say: I need Shabbat to be desecrated, one desecrates Shabbat for her. Between three and seven days after birth, if she said: I need Shabbat to be desecrated, one desecrates Shabbat for her. If she did not say: I need Shabbat to be desecrated, one does not desecrate Shabbat for her. Between seven and thirty days after birth, even if she said: I need Shabbat to be desecrated, one does not desecrate Shabbat for her; however, we perform all necessary prohibited labors by means of a gentile. This ruling is in accordance with the statement of Rav Ulla, son of Rav Ilai, who said: All needs of a sick person whose life is not in danger are performed by means of a gentile on Shabbat. And this ruling is in accordance with the opinion of Rav Hamnuna, as Rav Hamnuna says: With regard to a matter in which there is no danger, but only potential illness, one says to the gentile to perform the act, and the gentile performs the act. Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: For a woman in childbirth, there is a halakha of thirty days. The Gemara asks: With regard to what halakha was this stated? The Sages of Neharde’a say: It was stated with regard to the halakha of immersion. A woman does not purify herself through ritual immersion within thirty days of giving birth because she is in a weakened state and susceptible to catching cold. Rava said: We say that the ruling that she does not immerse during that period applies only when her husband is not with her. However, if her husband is with her, her husband warms her by engaging in relations with her, and she is not susceptible to catching cold, as is illustrated in this incident involving the daughter of Rav Ḥisda, Rava’s wife. She immersed within thirty days of giving birth, not in the presence of her husband, and caught cold, and afterward they brought her funeral bier after Rava to Pumbedita. Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: One builds a fire for a woman in childbirth on Shabbat during the rainy season. The Sages thought to infer from here the following: For a woman in childbirth, yes, one builds a fire; for sick people, no, he does not build a fire. In the rainy season, yes, one builds a fire; in the summer, no, he does not build a fire. And the Gemara concludes: That is not the case. There is no difference between a woman in childbirth and a sick person, and there is no difference between the rainy season and the summer. In all of these cases one may build a fire on Shabbat. This conclusion emerges from that which was stated: Rav Ḥiyya bar Avin said that Shmuel said: With regard to one who let blood and caught cold, one makes a fire for him even during the season of Tammuz, i.e., the summer. Failure to do so could result in serious illness. The Gemara relates that after Shmuel underwent bloodletting, they broke for him a wooden armchair made of teak [shaga] to build a fire. Similarly, for the sake of Rav Yehuda they broke a wooden table made of ebony [yavna], and for Rabba they broke a bench. They needed to build a fire due to the potential danger to Rabba. Since they could not find firewood, they kindled the fire with the furniture. And Abaye said to Rabba: In breaking the bench, didn’t the Master violate the prohibition, “Do not destroy” (Deuteronomy 20:19)? It is prohibited to destroy objects of value. Rabba said to him: Do not destroy also with regard to destruction of my body. Preventing illness and danger is preferable to me. With regard to the danger of bloodletting, the Gemara cites that which Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: One should always sell the beams of his house and purchase shoes for his feet with the proceeds, as shoes protect him from stepping on obstacles and from catching cold. If he let blood and has nothing to eat after the bloodletting, he should even sell the shoes on his feet, and from the proceeds provide the needs of a meal. After bloodletting, a meal is more crucial to one’s well-being than shoes are. The Gemara asks: What are these special needs of a meal? Rav said: It is referring to meat. And Shmuel said: It is referring to wine. The Gemara explains: Rav says: It is referring to meat because the soul replaces the soul, i.e., the meat replenishes the person’s strength. And Shmuel said: It is referring to wine because the red replaces the red, i.e., red wine substitutes for red blood. A mnemonic for the names of the Sages cited in the following discussion is the word shenimsar; shin for Shmuel, nun for Rabbi Yoḥanan, mem for Rav Naḥman, samekh for Rav Yosef, reish for Rava. The Gemara relates the following about bloodletting and drinking wine. Shmuel, on the day on which he would perform the practice of bloodletting, they would prepare for him a dish of cooked spleen. Rabbi Yoḥanan would drink wine after bloodletting until the odor emerged from his ears. And Rav Naḥman would drink until his spleen floated in wine. Rav Yosef would drink until the wine would emerge from the bloodletting incision. Rava would search for wine that was sufficiently aged such that three leaves had already grown over three years on the vine from which the grapes were picked (Rashash). Rav Naḥman bar Yitzhak said to the Sages: I beg of you, on the day that you undergo bloodletting, tell your households, your wives: Naḥman bar Yitzhak happened to come to visit us. Due to the visit of the important guest, the women will prepare a large meal. The husbands will eat well, recover from the lost blood, and avoid endangering themselves. And Rav Naḥman bar Yitzhak said: All types of artifice that come at the expense of others are prohibited except for this artifice, which is permitted. One who performed the practice of bloodletting and it is not possible for him to purchase food due to lack of means, let him take a worn zuz coin and go to seven stores. In each store, he tastes the wine as one who seeks to buy wine would. After tasting, he hands the zuz to the storekeeper, who will not accept it because it is worn. He then proceeds to do the same in all the stores until he has tasted the measure of a quarter of a log of wine. And if doing so is not possible, let him eat seven black dates and smear oil on his temple and lie in the sun. The Gemara relates: The gentile scholar, Ablat, found Shmuel lying in the sun. Ablat said to Shmuel: Wise man of the Jews, a matter that is evil, can it become good? Are there any circumstances in which the heat of the sun, which is harmful, can be beneficial? Shmuel said to him: It happens on a day of bloodletting, for which the heat of the sun is beneficial. The Gemara comments: And actually, that is not what occurred. Rather, there is a day on which the sun is beneficial more than the entire year, and that is the day on which the Tammuz solstice, the longest day of the year, occurs. And Shmuel thought: I will not reveal this remedy to him. Indifferent, in wind, taste, waited are a mnemonic for the following matters. It was Rav and Shmuel who both said: Anyone who is indifferent and not vigilant with regard to the meal eaten after bloodletting, they are indifferent with regard to providing his food from the Heavens. And they say in the name of Heaven: He took no pity on his life, will I take pity on him? Similarly, it was Rav and Shmuel who both said: One who performs the practice of bloodletting should not sit where the wind is blowing, due to the concern that perhaps the blood letter let too much blood from him and established the amount of remaining blood at a quarter of a log. And there is concern the wind will come and draw out a little more blood from him, and he will be endangered. The Gemara relates: Shmuel would customarily perform the practice of bloodletting in a house whose walls were seven and a half bricks thick. One day he performed bloodletting and felt himself weakened. He examined and discovered that one half-brick was lacking from the thickness of the walls. The resultant chill caused his weakness. It was Rav and Shmuel who both said: One who performs the practice of bloodletting should taste something and then go outside, since if he does not taste anything, if he encounters a corpse, his face will turn green. If he encounters one who killed a person, he will die. If he encounters something else, a euphemism for a pig, it is harmful with regard to something else, a euphemism for leprosy. It was Rav and Shmuel who both said: With regard to one who performs the practice of bloodletting, let him wait a bit and then let him rise, as the Master said: There are five matters that render one closer to death than life, and they are these: If one ate and immediately rose, if one drank and rose, if one slept and immediately rose, if one let blood and rose, if one engaged in conjugal relations and rose. Shmuel said: The interval for bloodletting is every thirty days. And during the middle periods of one’s life, he should decrease the frequency of bloodletting; and during the later periods, he should decrease its frequency again. And Shmuel said: The times for bloodletting are the first day of the week, the fourth day of the week and Shabbat eve. However, on the second and the fifth days of the week, no, one should not let blood, as the Master said: Only one who has the merit of his ancestors and relies on it should let blood on the second and on the fifth days of the week, as the court on High, in the heavens, and the court below are equal. The courts in the cities convene on Mondays and Thursdays, as does the heavenly court. Letting blood on a day of judgment is dangerous. If one is judged unfavorably all his blood could flow out. The Gemara explains: On the third day of the week, what is the reason that one does not let blood? It is because the planet Mars is dominant during the even hours. Since it is a planet of blood, and the even hours are a bad omen, that combination gives cause for concern. The Gemara asks: On Shabbat eve, Mars also dominates during the even hours. The Gemara answers: Since the multitudes have already become accustomed to letting blood on Shabbat eve, the verse: “The Lord protects the simple-hearted” (Psalms 116:6) applies in this case. Similarly, Shmuel says: On the fourth day of the week that is the fourth day of the month; on the fourth day of the week that is the fourteenth of the month; on the fourth day of the week that is the twenty-fourth of the month; and on the fourth day of the week after which there are not four days remaining in the month it is dangerous to let blood. Bloodletting on the New Moon and on the second day of the month causes weakness; bloodletting on the third day of the month leads to danger. Bloodletting on the eve of a Festival causes weakness; bloodletting on the eve of the festival of Shavuot leads to danger. And the Sages issued a decree prohibiting bloodletting on the eve of every Festival due to the festival of Shavuot. On Shavuot, an evil spirit named Tibbuaḥ, from the Hebrew word meaning slaughter, emerges, as had the Jewish people not accepted the Torah on the festival of Shavuot, Tibbuaḥ would have slaughtered their flesh and their blood. Consequently, it remains a dangerous day. Shmuel said: If one ate wheat and afterward let blood, he only let that wheat. The bloodletting was ineffective as the wheat replaced any blood that was let. And this ineffectiveness applies only if he let blood to cure an illness; however, to relieve discomfort, bloodletting after eating wheat relieves one’s discomfort. One who lets blood should engage in drinking immediately; he should not engage in eating until the time that it takes to walk half a mil has elapsed. A dilemma was raised before the Sages: When they said that one should engage in drinking immediately, does that mean that drinking immediately is beneficial; however, thereafter, it is injurious? Or perhaps, thereafter it is neither injurious nor beneficial. No resolution is found for this dilemma, therefore it stands unresolved. Similarly, a dilemma was raised before the Sages: When they said one should not engage in eating until the time that it takes to walk half a mil has elapsed, does that mean that only at that time it is beneficial, however, after that time or before that time it is injurious? Or perhaps, before and after that time it is neither injurious nor beneficial. No resolution is found for this dilemma, therefore it too stands unresolved. Rav would announce: One hundred bloodlettings for a zuz; cutting the hair on one hundred heads for a zuz; grooming one hundred moustaches does not cost anything (ge’onim). Blood letters typically served as barbers as well and did not charge for grooming a moustache. If one hundred men happened to arrive one day to have their moustaches groomed, the barber would work all day without receiving any pay. Rav Yosef said: When we were students in Rav Huna’s school, on a day when the Sages were sluggish in their studies, they would say: Today is the day of the moustaches, and I did not know what they were saying. Now that I heard Rav’s statement, I understand that they meant that it was a day without purpose. We learned in the mishna: And one may tie the umbilical cord of a child born on Shabbat. The Sages taught similarly in the Tosefta and even added to it: One may tie the umbilical cord of a child born on Shabbat. Rabbi Yosei said: One may even cut the umbilical cord. And one may insulate the placenta as a healing remedy so as to warm the newborn. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel said: Princesses insulate the placenta in mugs of oil; the daughters of the wealthy do so in combed wool; the daughters of the poor in soft rags. Rav Naḥman said that Rabba bar Avuh said that Rav said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei that it is even permitted to cut the umbilical cord on Shabbat. And Rav Naḥman said that Rabba bar Avuh said that Rav said: The Rabbis concede to Rabbi Yosei with regard to the umbilical cord attached to twin babies that one may cut it on Shabbat. What is the reason for this? In that case, leaving the cord attached is dangerous. Since the attached twins will try to disengage from each other, they could potentially rip each other’s cords. And Rav Naḥman said that Rabba bar Avuh said that Rav said: Everything stated in the passage of rebuke (Ezekiel 16) one may perform for a woman in childbirth on Shabbat. Since that chapter speaks of the dangerous birth of an abandoned child, for all other children, these issues should be addressed. As it is stated there: “And as for your birth, on the day you were born, your navel was not cut, and you were not washed in water for cleansing, and you were not salted, nor were you swaddled” (Ezekiel 16:4). The Gemara explains: “And as for your birth, on the day you were born”; from here it is derived that one delivers the newborn on Shabbat. “Your navel was not cut”; from here it is derived that one cuts the umbilical cord on Shabbat. “And you were not washed in water for cleansing”; from here it is derived that one washes the newborn on Shabbat. “And you were not salted”; from here it is derived that one salts the newborn on Shabbat. “Nor were you swaddled”; from here it is derived that one swaddles the newborn on Shabbat.

Chmouel, ils ont cassé pour lui un fauteuil en tek, Rav Yéhouada, ils ont cassé pour lui une table d'ébène, pour Raba ils ont cassé un banc. Abbayé a dit à Raba: C'est que tu as transgressé le commandement de Bal TachHit! Il lui a dit: le Bal tachHit de mon corps m'est préférable.
אָמַר רַב זוּטְרָא: הַאי מַאן דִּמְכַסֵּי שְׁרָגָא דְּמִשְׁחָא וּמְגַלֵּי נַפְטָא קָעָבַר מִשּׁוּם ״בַּל תַּשְׁחִית״

רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר אוֹמֵר מִשּׁוּם חִילְפָא בַּר אַגְרָא שֶׁאָמַר מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן נוּרִי: הַמְקָרֵע בְּגָדָיו בַּחֲמָתוֹ, וְהַמְשַׁבֵּר כֵּלָיו בַּחֲמָתוֹ, וְהַמְפַזֵּר מְעוֹתָיו בַּחֲמָתוֹ, יְהֵא בְּעֵינֶיךָ כְּעוֹבֵד עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה. שֶׁכָּךְ אוּמָּנוּתוֹ שֶׁל יֵצֶר הָרָע: הַיּוֹם אוֹמֵר לוֹ עֲשֵׂה כָּךְ, וּלְמָחָר אוֹמֵר לוֹ עֲשֵׂה כָּךְ, עַד שֶׁאוֹמֵר לוֹ עֲבוֹד עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה וְהוֹלֵךְ וְעוֹבֵד.

and managed to write two letters, he is liable. The Gemara asks: Didn’t we learn in the mishna that one is exempt in that case? The Gemara answers: This is not difficult: That case where we learned that he is exempt is referring to a case where the letters require crowns. This is referring to a case where they do not require crowns, and he is liable. If the letters already had their requisite ornamentation and an individual separated them, it is as if he wrote two letters. We learned in the mishna If one wrote one letter as an abbreviation [notarikon] representing an entire word, Rabbi Yehoshua ben Beteira deems him liable to bring a sin-offering, and the Rabbis deem him exempt. Rabbi Yoḥanan said in the name of Rabbi Yosei ben Zimra: From where is it derived that the language of abbreviation is employed in the Torah? As it is stated: “Neither shall your name any more be called Abram, but your name shall be Abraham; for the father of a multitude of nations [av hamon goyim] have I made you” (Genesis 17:5). The verse itself contracts av hamon into Abraham [Avraham]. The words av hamon themselves are interpreted as an abbreviation: I have made you a father [av] for the nations, I have made you chosen [baḥur] among the nations, I have made you beloved [ḥaviv] among the nations, I have made you king [melekh] for the nations, I have made you distinguished [vatik] for the nations, I have made you trusted [ne’eman] for the nations. Rabbi Yoḥanan himself said that the word anokhi that begins the Ten Commandments is an abbreviation for: I myself wrote and gave [ana nafshi ketivat yehavit]. The Rabbis said it is an abbreviation for: A pleasant statement was written and given [amira ne’ima ketiva yehiva]. Some say the word anokhi can be interpreted backwards: It was written, it was given, its statements are faithful [yehiva ketiva ne’emanim amareha]. The school of Rabbi Natan said that there is another abbreviation in the Torah. In the verse: “And the angel of the Lord said to him: Why did you hit your donkey these three times? Behold I have come out as an adversary because your way is contrary [yarat] against me” (Numbers 22:32). Yarat is an abbreviation for: The donkey feared [yare’a], it saw [ra’ata], and it turned aside [nateta]. The school of Rabbi Yishmael taught: The word karmel in the verse: “And bread, and toasted grain flour, and toasted grain [karmel]” (Leviticus 23:14) means: A full kernel [kar maleh], i.e., the seed fills the stalk. Rav Aḥa bar Ya’akov said in King David’s words: “And behold, with you is Shimi ben Gera from Benjamin, of Bahurim, who cursed me with a grievous [nimretzet] curse on the day that I went to Mahanaim” (I Kings 2:8). The word nimretzet is an abbreviation for: He is an adulterer [noef], he is a Moabite [Moavi], he is a murderer [rotze’aḥ], he is an oppressor [tzorer], he is an abomination [to’eva]. Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said that there is another abbreviation in the Bible: “And Judah said: What can we say to my master, what can we speak, and how can we justify [nitztadak]” (Genesis 44:16), which stands for: We are honest [nekhonim], we are righteous [tzaddikim], we are pure [tehorim], we are innocent [dakkim], we are holy [kedoshim]. MISHNA: With regard to one who writes two letters on Shabbat in two separate lapses of awareness separated by a period of awareness that the day was Shabbat, writing one letter in the morning and one letter in the afternoon, Rabban Gamliel deems him liable to bring a sin-offering like someone who has unintentionally performed a full-fledged prohibited labor, and the Rabbis deem him exempt. GEMARA: The Gemara asks: With regard to what do they disagree? Rabban Gamliel holds: There is no awareness for half a measure. One is not liable to bring a sacrifice for half a measure; therefore, the fact that he became aware between performance of the two halves of the prohibited labor is of no significance. His awareness does not demarcate between one act of writing a letter and the second act of writing a letter with regard to liability to bring a sin-offering. And the Rabbis hold: There is awareness for half a measure. If an individual became aware of his transgression between the two parts of the prohibited labor, each individual part is independent of the other, and the two halves of the prohibited labor do not join together to create liability. MISHNA: Rabbi Eliezer says: One who weaves on Shabbat is liable to bring a sin-offering if he wove three threads at the beginning of something new, or if he adds one thread to a preexisting woven fabric. And the Rabbis say: Both at the beginning and at the end, its measure for liability is two threads. One who makes two meshes, i.e., ties the threads of the warp, attaching them to either the nirin or the keiros, which will be explained in the Gemara, in a winnow, sieve, or basket, is liable for making meshes. And one who sews is liable if he sews two stitches. And one who tears is liable if he tears enough fabric in order to sew two stitches to repair it. GEMARA: When Rabbi Yitzḥak came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he taught that Rabbi Eliezer said: Two threads is the measure that determines liability for beginning a weave. The Gemara asks: Didn’t we learn three in the mishna? The Gemara answers: This is not difficult, because this source is referring to thick threads and that source is referring to thin threads. Some say it this way, that one is liable when weaving two thick threads, and some say it that way, that one is liable when weaving two thin threads. The Gemara elaborates: Some say it this way: One who weaves thick threads, three threads will not unravel, but two will unravel. With regard to thin threads, two will also not unravel. And some say it this way: One who weaves thin threads, three threads are conspicuous, two are not conspicuous. With regard to thick threads, two are also conspicuous. It was taught in a baraita: One who weaves three threads at the beginning or one thread onto a preexisting woven fabric is liable. And the Rabbis say: Both at the beginning and at the end, its measure for liability is two threads. And if one weaves a hem with a thread or color different from the original garment, he is liable for weaving two threads across a width of three meshes, i.e., three threads of the warp. Why is one liable in that case? To what is this similar? It is similar to weaving a small belt in which one weaves two threads across a width of three meshes, the width of the belt. And when it is taught in the baraita: One who weaves three threads at the beginning or one thread onto a preexisting woven fabric is liable, that unattributed baraita is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer. It was taught in another baraita: One who weaves two threads onto a large fabric or onto the border of a fabric alongside the woof on Shabbat is liable. Rabbi Eliezer says: One is liable even if he weaves one thread. And along the edge of the warp, one who weaves two threads across a width of three meshes is liable. To what is this similar? It is similar to weaving a small belt in which one weaves two threads across a width of three meshes. The Gemara comments: When it was taught in the baraita: One who weaves two threads onto a large fabric or onto the border is liable, that unattributed baraita is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis. We learned in the mishna that one who makes two meshes, attaching them to either the nirin or the keiros, is liable. The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of to the nirin? Abaye said: One ties two to the meshes, the thread of the warp, and ties one to the crosspiece, the thread that extends from the weaving rod. We learned in the mishna that one is liable for attaching the meshes to the keiros, and the Gemara asks: What is a keiros? Rav said: It refers to the slips, the parts that go up and down on a stationary loom and are parallel to the pole. And we also learned in the mishna that one who sews on Shabbat is liable if he sews two stitches. The Gemara asks: We already learned that on the list of primary categories of prohibited labor: And one who sews two stitches is liable. The Gemara answers: Since the mishna wanted to teach in the latter clause: And one who tears in order to sew two stitches, it also taught the halakha of one who sews. And one who tears, did we not also learn this in the mishna enumerating the list of primary categories of prohibited labor? Since the mishna wanted to teach a new halakha in the latter clause, namely: One who tears in his anger or for his dead relative, therefore, it also taught the halakha of one who sews two stitches. With regard to what we learned in the mishna: And one who tears in order to sew two stitches, the Gemara asks: Where do you find that case where it is necessary to tear a garment in order to sew it? The Gemara explains: It is found in a case where a pocketlike protrusion impedes sewing. Therefore, one tears the garment and tucks the protruding portion under the seam. MISHNA: One who rends his garment in his anger or in anguish over his dead relative is exempt. And anyone else who performs labors destructively on Shabbat is exempt. And one who performs a labor destructively in order to repair is liable, and his measure for liability is equivalent to the measure for one who performs that labor constructively. The measure that determines liability for one who whitens, or one who combs, or one who dyes, or one who spins wool is the full width of a double sit, which is the distance between the forefinger and the middle finger. And for one who weaves two threads, the measure that determines liability is one sit. GEMARA: We learned in the mishna: One who rends his garment in anger or in anguish over his dead relative is exempt. The Gemara raises a contradiction to this based on a baraita: One who rends his garment in his anger or in his mourning or in his anguish over his dead relative is liable for performing a prohibited labor on Shabbat. And even though he desecrates Shabbat by tearing his garment, he nevertheless fulfilled his obligation of rending his garment in mourning. Apparently, one is liable for rending his garment in anguish over the dead. The Gemara answers: This is not difficult, as this mishna, which states one is liable for rending his garment, is referring to his own dead relative for whom he is obligated to tear his garment. And that mishna, which states one is exempt for rending his garment, is referring to any unrelated dead person. The Gemara asks: Didn’t we learn in the mishna: Over his dead relative? The Gemara answers: Actually, the mishna, which says that he is exempt, is referring to his own dead; however, it is referring to those relatives who are not subject to the obligation of mourning by Torah law. The Gemara asks: And even so, if the dead person is a Torah scholar, one is obligated to rend one’s garment in anguish over his death, as it was taught in a baraita: When a Torah scholar dies, everyone is his relative. The Gemara asks: Does it enter your mind that everyone is his relative? Rather, say: Everyone is considered to be like his relative, in the sense that everyone rends his garment in anguish over him, and everyone bares his shoulder over him in mourning, and everyone eats the mourner’s meal over him in the public square as mourners do. The death of a Torah scholar is a personal loss for every Jew. The Gemara answers: It was only necessary for the mishna to teach this halakha in a case where the dead person is not a Torah scholar. The Gemara asks: And if he was an upright person, aren’t all those present at his death obligated to rend their garments over his death? As it was taught in a baraita: Why do a person’s sons and daughters die when they are young? They die so that he will cry and mourn over the death of an upright worthy person. The Gemara asks: They die so that he will cry? Is security taken from him in advance to ensure that he fulfills his obligation? Rather, emend the statement and say: It is because he did not cry or mourn over an upright person who died, as anyone who cries over an upright person who died, they forgive him for all his transgressions because of the honor he accorded to the deceased. Nevertheless, it is difficult, as one is required to rend his clothing over the death of an upright person. The Gemara answers: It was only necessary for the mishna to teach this halakha in a case where the deceased was not an upright person. The Gemara asks: And if one is standing close to the deceased when the soul leaves the body, he is obligated to rend his garment, as it was taught in a baraita: Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: One who is standing over the deceased at the time of the departure of the soul is obligated to rend his garment. To what is this similar? It is similar to a Torah scroll that was burned. The Gemara answers: It was only necessary for the mishna to teach this halakha in a case where he is not standing there at the time of the departure of the soul. The Gemara asks further: This works out well in terms of resolving the contradiction with regard to his dead relative. However, the contradiction between the ruling in the mishna that one who rends his garment in his anger is not liable, and the ruling in the baraita that one who rends his garment in his anger is liable, is still difficult. The mishna exempts one who rends garments in anger, while the baraita deems him liable. The Gemara answers: The contradiction between his anger in the mishna and his anger in the baraita is also not difficult, as this ruling in the baraita that deems him liable is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, and that ruling in the mishna that exempts him is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon. The Gemara elaborates: This ruling in the baraita follows Rabbi Yehuda, who said that one who performs a prohibited labor on Shabbat that is not needed for its own sake is liable for performing it. Therefore, one who rends his garment in anger is liable. That ruling in the mishna which exempts him is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, who said that one who performs a labor that is not needed for its own sake is exempt for performing it. The Gemara asks: Say that you heard that Rabbi Yehuda rules that one is liable for performing a labor not needed for its own sake in the case of a constructive act; did you hear him deem one liable in the case of a destructive act? Rabbi Avin said: This case, where one rends his garment in anger, is also constructive, because in doing so he assuages his anger. Rending his garment calms him; therefore, it can be said that he derives benefit from the act of rending, and it is consequently a constructive act. The Gemara asks: And is it at all permitted to tear in that manner? Wasn’t it taught in a baraita that Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says in the name of Ḥilfa bar Agra, who said in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri: One who rends his garments in his anger, or who breaks his vessels in his anger, or who scatters his money in his anger, should be like an idol worshipper in your eyes, as that is the craft of the evil inclination. Today it tells him do this, and tomorrow it tells him do that, until eventually, when he no longer controls himself, it tells him worship idols and he goes and worships idols. Rabbi Avin said: What verse alludes to this? “There shall not be a strange god within you, and you shall not bow to a foreign god” (Psalms 81:10). What is the strange god that is within a person’s body? Say that it is the evil inclination. One may not rend his garments in anger, because in doing so he is deriving pleasure from satisfying the evil inclination. The Gemara answers: It is only necessary to discuss this in a case where one does so to instill fear in the members of his household. In order to show them that he is very angry, he tears and breaks objects even though he is not that angry. In that case he maintains control of himself and is not in danger of succumbing to the evil inclination. It is like the incident where Rav Yehuda sought to display his anger and he pulled threads off his garment. Rav Aḥa bar Ya’akov smashed broken vessels, Rav Sheshet threw small fish on his maidservant’s head, and Rabbi Abba broke the lid of a jug. All of these Sages caused minimal damage in creating the impression that they were angry. Apropos the laws of mourning for an upright person and a Torah scholar, the Gemara cites that which Rabbi Shimon ben Pazi said that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said in the name of Bar Kappara: Anyone who sheds tears over an upright person, the Holy One, Blessed be He, counts his tears and places them in His treasury, as it is stated: “You have counted my wanderings, put my tears into your bottle, are they not in your book?” (Psalms 56:9). Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: Anyone who is lazy in eulogizing a Torah scholar, it is fitting to bury him alive, as it is stated: “And they buried him in the border of his inheritance in Timnat-seraḥ, which is in the hill-country of Ephraim, on the north of the mountain of Ga’ash” (Joshua 24:30). This teaches that the mountain raged against them to kill them because they did not eulogize him appropriately. Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Whoever is lazy in eulogizing a Sage does not live a long life, and his punishment is measure for measure. Since he was unconcerned with the death of the Sage, in the heavens they will be unconcerned with his death. The Holy One, Blessed be He, conducts Himself in this manner, as it is stated: “In full measure [besase’a], when You send her away You contend with her” (Isaiah 27:8), and the Sages derived that God punishes from the words: “You contend with her,” and He does so measure for measure, se’a for se’a, from the word sase’a in the verse above. Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba raised an objection to Rabbi Yoḥanan: It is stated: “And the nation worshipped the Lord all the days of Joshua and all the days of the Elders, who lived many days after Joshua” (Judges 2:7), indicating that the Elders lived long lives even though they did not eulogize Joshua properly. Rabbi Yoḥanan said to him: Babylonian, you should be more precise in your reading. They indeed lived many days; however, they did not live many years. In fact, they did not live to the end of that year. Again he asked: But then with regard to the verse “So that your days and the days of your children will multiply on the land which the Lord your God swore to give to your fathers, as the days of the heavens over the earth” (Deuteronomy 11:21), would you also say that here the reward is to live many days but not years? He answered him: A blessing is different and should be interpreted in its most expansive sense. And Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: If one of the brothers dies,
La personne qui déchire ses vêtements et celle qui brise des objets dans sa colère, et qui disperse son argent dans sa colère, qu'elle soit à tes yeux comme servante du service étranger. Car ainsi va l'art du mauvais penchant. Aujourd'hui il lui dit fais ainsi et demain il lui dit fais ainsi jusqu'à ce qu'il lui dise accomplis un service étranger et il va et il le sert. Rabbi Avin a dit, que signifie l'écrit il n'y aura pas en toi un dieu-force-guide étranger et tu ne te prosterneras pas devant un dfg étranger? quel est le dgf étranger qui est dans le corps de l'être humain? Disons: c'est le penchant mauvais. Tu n'en as pas besoin si ce n'est pour la personne qui fait de la tromperie pour sa colère pour les gens de sa maison. Comme cette histoire de Rav Yéhouda qui a arraché des fils de ses vêtements, Rav aHa bar yaakov qui a brisé un petit une poterie cassée, Rav Chechet qui a jeté un petit poisson sur la tête de sa servante et Rabbi aHa qui a cassé le couvercle d'une cruche.
Talmud Babylonien Chabbat 105b

(א) שלא להשחית אילני מאכל - שנמנענו מלכרת האילנות כשנצור על עיר כדי להצר לאנשי העיר ולהכאיב לבותם, ועל זה נאמר (דברים כ יט) לא תשחית את עצה וגו' ואותו לא תכרת, וכמו כן נכנס תחת זה הלאו, שלא לעשות שום הפסד, כגון לשרף, או לקרע בגד או לשבר כלי לבטלה, ובכל ענינים אלו ובכל כיוצא בם שיהיה בהם השחתה. ואמרו זכרונם לברכה תמיד בגמרא (קידושין לב, א) והא קא עבר משום בל תשחית, ומכל מקום אין מלקין אלא בקוצץ אילני מאכל, שהוא מפרש בכתוב, אבל בשאר ההשחתות מכין אותו מכת מרדות (עי' רמב''ם מלכים ו י).

(ב) שרש המצוה ידוע, שהוא כדי ללמד נפשנו לאהב הטוב והתועלת ולהדבק בו, ומתוך כך תדבק בנו הטובה, ונרחיק מכל דבר רע ומכל דבר השחתה, וזהו דרך החסידים ואנשי מעשה אוהבים שלום ושמחים בטוב הבריות ומקרבים אותן לתורה, ולא יאבדו אפילו גרגיר של חרדל בעולם, ויצר עליהם בכל אבדון והשחתה שיראו, ואם יוכלו להציל יצילו כל דבר מהשחית בכל כחם, ולא כן הרשעים אחיהם של מזיקים שמחים בהשחתת עולם, והמה משחיתים את עצמם במדה שאדם מודד בה מודדין לו. כלומר, בה הוא נדבק לעולם, וכענין שכתוב (משלי יז, ה) שמח לאיד לא ינקה רע. והחפץ בטוב ושמח בו נפשו בטוב תלין לעולם זה ידוע ומפרסם.

(ג) מדיני המצוה. מה שאמרו זכרונם לברכה (ב''ק צא, ב), שלא אסרה תורה שלא לקץ אילני מאכל, אלא בקוצץ אותם דרך השחתה, אבל ודאי מתר לקץ אם ימצא בדבר תועלת, כגון שיהיו דמי אותו העץ יקרים וזה רצה למכרו, או לסלק בקציצתן נזק, כגון, שהיה מזיק אילנות אחרים טובים ממנו, או מפני שמזיק בשדות אחרים, בכל צדדין אלו ובכל כיוצא בו מתר. וכל אילן סרק, אמרו זכרונם לברכה (שם) שמתר לקץ ואפילו בשאינו צריך לו, וכל אילן מאכל שהוא זקן מאד עד שאינו עושה אלא מעט פרות, שאין ראוי לטרח בו בשבילן. ואמרו זכרונם לברכה, בזית כל שהיא עושה פחות מרבע זיתים מתר לקץ אותה, ובדקל שיעשה פחות מקב תמרים.

(ד) ודרך כלל אסרו זכרונם לברכה לעשות כל דבר של השחתה, והמשחית שום דבר מתוך חמה אמרו עליו (שבת קה, ב) שהוא כעובד עבודה זרה, שכן דרכו של יצר הרע, היום אומר לו עשה כן ואם יאמין אותו למחר יאמר לו לך עבוד עבודה זרה, כלומר שכל אדם חיב לגער ביצרו ולכבש תאותו עד שיגביר נפש המשכלת על נפש המתאוה עד שתהיה לה לאמה, והיא גברת לעולם ועד. ואמנם הביאו בגמרא (שם) מעשים בקצת החכמים שמראים עצמן כעוסים, כדי ליסר בני ביתם ולזרזן ומשליכין מידם שום מאכל או שום דבר, ומכל מקום השגחתם היתה בהם לעולם שלא ישליכו דבר שיהא נשחת בזה. ויתר פרטי המצוה, בבבא בתרא פרק שני [ה' מלכים פ''ז].

(ה) ונוהג אסור זה בכל מקום ובכל זמן בזכדים ונקבות, והעובר על זה והשחית אילני מאכל עבר על לאו זה וחיב מלקות. ועל שאר השחתה בכל שאר דברים שאינן מפרשים מכין אותו מכת מרדות.

(1) To not destroy fruit trees: That we have been prevented from chopping down trees when we besiege a city to distress the people of the city and to sadden their hearts. And about this is it stated (Deuteronomy 20:19), "you may not destroy its tree, etc. and you shall not chop it down." And likewise not to do any damage - such as burning or ripping a garment or breaking a vessel for no reason - entered under this negative commandment And in all of these matters and in all that is similar to them, they, may their memory be blessed, would always say in the Gemara (Kiddushin 32a), "But behold, he is transgressing on account of 'do not destroy.'" And nonetheless we only administer lashes for one that cuts down a fruit tree, since it is explicit in Scripture. But with other destructions, we [only] give him lashes of rebellion (See Mishneh Torah, Laws of Kings and Wars 6:10).

(2) The root of this commandment is well-known - it is in order to teach our souls to love good and benefit and to cling to it. And through this, good clings to us and we will distance [ourselves] from all bad and destructive things. And this is the way of the pious and people of [proper] action - they love peace and are happy for the good of the creatures and bring them close to Torah, and they do not destroy even a grain of mustard in the world. And they are distressed by all loss and destruction that they see; and if they can prevent it, they will prevent any destruction with all of their strength. But not so are the wicked - the brothers of the destructive spirits. They rejoice in the destruction of the world, and they destroy themselves - [since] in the way that a person measures, so is he measured; which is to say that he clings to it forever, as the matter that is written (Proverbs 17:5), "the one who rejoices in calamity, will not be cleared (of evil)." And the one who desires the good and rejoices in it, 'his soul will dwell in the good' forever. This is known and famous.

(3) From the laws of the commandment is that which they, may their memory be blessed, said (Bava Kamma 91b) that the Torah only forbade cutting fruit trees when he cuts it down destructively. But it is certainly permitted to cut [them] if he finds a beneficial matter in it, such as the value of the wood become valuable and he wants to sell it; or to remove injury by cutting them, such as [if] it was damaging other trees better than it, or because it was damaging other fields. In all of these angles and in all that is similar to it, it is permissible. And they, may their memory be blessed, said (Bava Kamma 91b) that it is permitted to cut any non-fruit bearing tree - even when he does not need [its wood] - and [likewise] any fruit tree that is very old, to the point that it only gives a few fruit, for the sake of which it is not worthwhile to toil [on it]. And they, may their memory be blessed, said with an olive tree, it is permitted to cut anything that makes less than a fourth [of a kav]; and with a palm tree, less than a kav of dates.

(4) And in general, they, may their memory be blessed, forbade to do anything destructive. And they said about anyone who destroys anything out of rage (Shabbat 105a) that he is like one who worships idolatry, as so is the way of the evil impulse: Today it says to him, "Do this"; and if he trusts it, tomorrow, it will say to him, "Go and worship idolatry" - meaning to say that every person is obligated to rebuke his impulse and to conquer his desire to the point that he makes the intellectual soul dominate the desiring soul, until it becomes its maidservant and [the intellect] dominate it forever and ever. However, they brought in the Gemara (Shabbat 105a) stories of a few sages that showed themselves to be angry and they would throw down some food or some thing from their hand, in order to discipline the members of their household and to give them alacrity. Nonetheless their supervision would always be over them, that they not throw down something that would be destroyed by this. And the rest of the details of the commandment are in the second chapter of Bava Batra (see Mishneh Torah, Laws of Kings and Wars 7).

(5) And this prohibition is practiced in every place and at all times by males and females. And one who transgresses it and destroys fruit trees has violated this negative commandment and is liable for lashes. And for other destruction on other things that are not explicit, we lash him [with] lashes of rebellion.

Pour approfondir:
https://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/ בל_תשחית
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bal_tashchit
https://www.tikkun.org/tikkundaily/2016/09/08/bal-taschit-whats-wrong-with-the-jewish-law-against-destruction-and-wastecommentary-
on-this-weeks-torah-portion-shoftim/
https://www.jewishveg.org/schwartz/chillul.html