## Shabbat Daf 107b

###### Shabbat 107b:1
[Shabbat 107b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shabbat/r/107b:1)

לְמַה שֶּׁמָּנוּ חֲכָמִים. אַדְּרַבָּה, לְמַה שֶּׁמָּנוּ חֲכָמִים אֵין לָהֶם עוֹר! וְאָמַר אַבָּיֵי, הָכִי קָאָמַר: אֵין עוֹר חָלוּק מִבָּשָׂר אֶלָּא לְמַה שֶּׁלֹּא מָנוּ חֲכָמִים, אֲמַר לֵיהּ רָבָא: הָא ״לְמַה שֶּׁמָּנוּ חֲכָמִים״ קָאָמַר? אֶלָּא אָמַר רָבָא, הָכִי קָאָמַר: אֵין עוֹר מְטַמֵּא כְּבָשָׂר אֶלָּא לְמַה שֶּׁמָּנוּ חֲכָמִים. מִכְּלָל דְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן נוּרִי הָנָךְ נָמֵי דְּלֹא מָנוּ חֲכָמִים מְטַמְּאִין? וְהָא קָתָנֵי, רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן נוּרִי אוֹמֵר: שְׁמֹנָה שְׁרָצִים יֵשׁ לָהֶן עוֹרוֹת וְלֹא מְטַמְּאִין! [אָמַר רַב] אַדָּא בַּר מַתְנָה: תָּרֵיץ הָכִי, וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: לְעִנְיַן טוּמְאָה אֵין עוֹר לְמַה שֶּׁמָּנוּ חֲכָמִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
with regard to those animals **enumerated by the Sages** as having skin, since their skin is considered by the Sages to be similar to their flesh. The Gemara asks: **On the contrary, those that the Sages enumerated**, whose skin and flesh are equated, **do not have skins. And Abaye said: This is what** the *tanna* in the *baraita* **is saying: Only those that the Sages did not enumerate have skin discrete from** their **flesh. Rava said to him: Doesn’t** the *baraita* **say** the opposite: **That those enumerated by the Sages** have skin discrete from their flesh? **Rather, Rava said: This is what** the *baraita* **is saying: Only the skin of those** animals **enumerated by the Sages transmits impurity like flesh.** The Gemara asks: Is that to say **by inference that Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri** holds that even the creeping animals **not enumerated by the Sages also transmit impurity? Isn’t** the opposite **taught,** that **Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri says:** The **eight creeping animals have skin** that **does not transmit impurity? Rav Adda bar Mattana said** to **resolve** it **this way: And the Rabbis say: With regard to impurity, those** animals **enumerated by** the **Sages do not have skin.** According to this explanation, Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri and the Rabbis disagree only with regard to the laws of impurity.


###### Shabbat 107b:2
[Shabbat 107b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shabbat/r/107b:2)

וְאַכַּתִּי, לְעִנְיַן שַׁבָּת לָא פְּלִיגִי? וְהָתַנְיָא: הַצָּד אֶחָד מִשְּׁמֹנָה שְׁרָצִים הָאֲמוּרִים בַּתּוֹרָה, הַחוֹבֵל בָּהֶן — חַיָּיב, בִּשְׁרָצִים שֶׁיֵּשׁ לָהֶן עוֹרוֹת. וְאֵיזוֹ הִיא חַבּוּרָה שֶׁאֵינָהּ חוֹזֶרֶת — נִצְרַר הַדָּם אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא יָצָא. רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן נוּרִי אוֹמֵר: שְׁמֹנָה שְׁרָצִים יֵשׁ לָהֶן עוֹרוֹת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**But still,** is it clear that **they do not disagree with regard to the matter of Shabbat? Wasn’t it taught** in a *baraita*: **One who traps one of the eight creeping animals mentioned in the Torah** on Shabbat **is liable,** as is **one who wounds them, if they are creeping animals that have skins? And what is** considered to be **an irreversible wound?** It is a wound where **the blood collects** in a single spot beneath the skin, **even if it does not emerge. Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri says:** The **eight creeping animals have skins.** Apparently, there is disagreement with regard to Shabbat as well.


###### Shabbat 107b:3
[Shabbat 107b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shabbat/r/107b:3)

אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי: מַאן תַּנָּא קַמָּא — רַבִּי יְהוּדָה דְּאָזֵיל בָּתַר גִּישְׁתָּא. דִּתְנַן, רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: הַלְּטָאָה כְּחוּלְדָּה. אֲבָל רַבָּנַן דִּפְלִיגִי עֲלֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן לְעִנְיַן טוּמְאָה, לְעִנְיַן שַׁבָּת מוֹדוּ לֵיהּ. אִי הָכִי, הַאי ״דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן נוּרִי״, ״דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן וּמַחְלוּקְתּוֹ״ מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ! תְּנִי: ״דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן נוּרִי וּמַחְלוּקְתּוֹ״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Ashi said: Who is** the **first *tanna*?** It is **Rabbi Yehuda, who follows the texture** of the skin. He does not distinguish between those creeping animals whose skin is considered like flesh and those whose skin is discrete from the flesh as the verses may imply; rather, creeping animals are distinguished based on the texture of their skin, **as we learned** in a mishna that **Rabbi Yehuda says:** Even though **the lizard** is mentioned in the verse, it has **the same** ruling **as the weasel** because the weasel has skin discrete from its flesh. **However, the Rabbis, who disagree with Rabbi Yoḥanan with regard to impurity, concede with regard to Shabbat** and hold that all creeping animals have skins. The Gemara asks: **If so, the** phrase in the *baraita*: This is **the statement of Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri,** is difficult. **It should** have said: This is **the statement of Rabbi Yoḥanan** ben Nuri **and those who disagree with him,** as the Rabbis who disagree with him with regard to impurity concede to him with regard to the laws of Shabbat. The Gemara responds: This is not difficult. Emend the *baraita* and **teach: The statement of Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri and those who disagree with him.**


###### Shabbat 107b:4
[Shabbat 107b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shabbat/r/107b:4)

בְּעָא מִינֵּיהּ לֵוִי מֵרַבִּי: מִנַּיִן לְחַבּוּרָה שֶׁאֵינָהּ חוֹזֶרֶת? דִּכְתִיב: ״הֲיַהֲפוֹךְ כּוּשִׁי עוֹרוֹ וְנָמֵר חֲבַרְבֻּרֹתָיו״. מַאי ״חֲבַרְבֻּרֹתָיו״? אִילֵּימָא דְּקָאֵי רִיקְמֵי רִיקְמֵי — הַאי ״וְנָמֵר חֲבַרְבֻּרֹתָיו״, ״נָמֵר גְּווֹנָיו״ מִבְּעֵי לֵיהּ! אֶלָּא — כְּכוּשִׁי: מָה עוֹרוֹ דְּכוּשִׁי אֵינָהּ חוֹזֶרֶת, אַף חַבּוּרָה אֵינָהּ חוֹזֶרֶת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Levi raised a dilemma before Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi: **From where** is it derived **that a wound is** defined as something **irreversible?** He answered him that it is derived **as it is written: “Can a Cushite change his skin, or a leopard its spots [*ḥavarburotav*]?”** (Jeremiah 13:23). The Gemara explains: **What** does ***ḥavarburotav*** mean? **If you say that they are spotted marks** on the leopard’s skin, **that** phrase: **Or a leopard its spots, should** have been: **Or a leopard its colors. Rather,** *ḥavarburotav* means wounds, and they are **similar to** the skin of **a Cushite: Just like the skin of a Cushite will not change** its color to white, **so too a wound** is something that **does not reverse.**


###### Shabbat 107b:5
[Shabbat 107b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shabbat/r/107b:5)

וּשְׁאָר שְׁקָצִים כּוּ׳. הָא הוֹרְגָן — חַיָּיב. מַאן תַּנָּא? אָמַר רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה: רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר הִיא. דְּתַנְיָא, רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: הַהוֹרֵג כִּינָּה בְּשַׁבָּת — כְּהוֹרֵג גָּמָל בְּשַׁבָּת. מַתְקִיף לַהּ רַב יוֹסֵף: עַד כָּאן לָא פְּלִיגִי רַבָּנַן עֲלֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אֶלָּא בְּכִינָּה, דְּאֵינָהּ פָּרָה וְרָבָה. אֲבָל שְׁאָר שְׁקָצִים וּרְמָשִׂים דְּפָרִין וְרָבִין — לָא פְּלִיגִי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
We learned in the mishna: **And** one who traps **other abominations** is exempt. The Gemara infers: If **one kills them** he is **liable.** The Gemara asks: **Who is** the ***tanna*** who holds this opinion? **Rabbi Yirmeya said: It is** the opinion of **Rabbi Eliezer, as it was taught** in a *baraita* that **Rabbi Eliezer says: One who kills lice on Shabbat is akin to one who kills a camel on Shabbat.** Apparently, he is the Sage who holds that one is liable for killing any living creature. **Rav Yosef strongly objects to this:** Perhaps this is not so, as **the Rabbis disagree with Rabbi Eliezer only with regard to lice,** which **do not procreate. However,** with regard to **other abominations and crawling things that procreate, they do not disagree** with him.


###### Shabbat 107b:6
[Shabbat 107b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shabbat/r/107b:6)

וּשְׁנֵיהֶם לֹא לְמָדוּהָ אֶלָּא מֵאֵילִים. רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר סָבַר כְּאֵילִים: מָה אֵילִים שֶׁיֵּשׁ בָּהֶן נְטִילַת נְשָׁמָה — אַף כֹּל שֶׁיֵּשׁ בּוֹ נְטִילַת נְשָׁמָה. וְרַבָּנַן סָבְרִי כְּאֵילִים: מָה אֵילִים דְּפָרִין וְרָבִין — אַף כֹּל דְּפָרֶה וְרָבֶה. אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: וְכִינָּה אֵין פָּרָה וְרָבָה? וְהָאָמַר מָר: יוֹשֵׁב הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא וְזָן מִקַּרְנֵי רֵאמִים וְעַד בֵּיצֵי כִינִּים! מִינָא הוּא דְּמִיקְּרֵי ״בֵּיצֵי כִינִּים״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And** fundamentally **they both derived** this *halakha* **from** the reddened **ram** skins used to cover the Tabernacle. **Rabbi Eliezer holds** that liability for killing an animal on Shabbat exists only with regard to animals **like rams. Just as rams have their lives taken** and die, **so too,** one is liable for killing **any animal whose life is taken,** including lice. **And the Rabbis** also **hold** that liability for killing an animal on Shabbat exists only with regard to animals **like rams. Just as rams procreate, so too,** one is liable for killing **any** creature **that procreates.** One is not liable for killing lice, which do not procreate. **Abaye said to** Rav Yosef: **And lice do not procreate? Didn’t the Master say: The Holy One, Blessed be He, sits and sustains** everything **from the horns of wild oxen to the eggs of lice?** Apparently, lice reproduce by laying eggs. Rav Yosef answered him: **There is a species** of insect **that is called lice eggs,** but lice themselves do not actually lay eggs.


###### Shabbat 107b:7
[Shabbat 107b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shabbat/r/107b:7)

וְהָתַנְיָא: טִפּוּיִין וּבֵיצֵי כִינִּים! מִינָא הוּא דְּמִיקְּרֵי ״בֵּיצֵי כִינִּים״. וַהֲרֵי פַּרְעוֹשׁ דְּפָרֶה וְרָבֶה, וְתַנְיָא: הַצָּד פַּרְעוֹשׁ בְּשַׁבָּת, רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר מְחַיֵּיב וְרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ פּוֹטֵר! אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי: צֵידָה אַהֲרִיגָה קָרָמֵית?! עַד כָּאן לָא פְּלִיגִי רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר וְרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ, אֶלָּא דְּמָר סָבַר: דָּבָר שֶׁאֵין בְּמִינוֹ נִיצּוֹד — חַיָּיב, וּמָר סָבַר: פָּטוּר. אֲבָל לְעִנְיַן הֲרִיגָה — אֲפִילּוּ רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ מוֹדֶה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Again he asked: **And wasn’t it taught** in the *baraita* that lists types of creeping animals: ***Tefuyei*,** a type of insect, **and lice eggs?** He answered him: **There is a species** of insect **called lice eggs.** Again he asked: **And** still, there is the issue of **a flea, which procreates** according to all opinions, **and nevertheless, it was taught** in a *baraita*: With regard to **one who traps a flea on Shabbat, Rabbi Eliezer deems him liable and Rabbi Yehoshua deems him exempt. Rav Ashi said: Are you raising a contradiction between trapping** with **killing? Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua disagree only** in **that** one **Sage,** Rabbi Eliezer, **holds** that **one is liable** for trapping even **a species that is not typically trapped; and** one **Sage,** Rabbi Yehoshua, **holds** that one is **exempt** in that case. **However, with regard to killing, even Rabbi Yehoshua concedes** that one is liable.


###### Shabbat 107b:8
[Shabbat 107b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shabbat/r/107b:8)

הַצָּדָן לְצוֹרֶךְ חַיָּיב וְכוּ׳. מַאן תַּנָּא? אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב: רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן הִיא, דְּאָמַר מְלָאכָה שֶׁאֵין צְרִיכָה לְגוּפָהּ — פָּטוּר עָלֶיהָ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
We learned in the mishna that **one who traps** creeping animals **for** a specific **need is liable,** but one who traps them for no specific need is exempt. The Gemara asks: **Who is** the ***tanna*** who holds this way? **Rav Yehuda said** that **Rav said: It is Rabbi Shimon, who said** that for **a** prohibited **labor** performed **not for its own sake, one is exempt.**


###### Shabbat 107b:9
[Shabbat 107b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shabbat/r/107b:9)

אִיכָּא דְּמַתְנֵי לַהּ אַהָא: הַמֵּפִיס מוּרְסָא בְּשַׁבָּת, אִם לַעֲשׂוֹת לָהּ פֶּה — חַיָּיב, אִם לְהוֹצִיא מִמֶּנָּה לֵחָה — פָּטוּר. מַאן תַּנָּא? אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב: רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן הִיא, דְּאָמַר מְלָאכָה שֶׁאֵין צְרִיכָה לְגוּפָהּ — פָּטוּר עָלֶיהָ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Some taught** the statement of Rav in reference **to this:** With regard to **one who drains an abscess** in a boil containing pus **on Shabbat, if** his intention is **to create an opening for it** he **is liable; if** his intention is **to remove pus from it he is exempt.** The Gemara asks: **Who is** the ***tanna*** who holds this way? **Rav Yehuda said** that **Rav said: It is Rabbi Shimon, who said** that for **a** prohibited **labor** performed **not for its own sake, one is exempt.**


###### Shabbat 107b:10
[Shabbat 107b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shabbat/r/107b:10)

וְאִיכָּא דְּמַתְנֵי לַהּ אַהָא: הַצָּד נָחָשׁ בְּשַׁבָּת, אִם מִתְעַסֵּק בּוֹ שֶׁלֹּא יִשְּׁכֶנּוּ — פָּטוּר, אִם לִרְפוּאָה — חַיָּיב. מַאן תַּנָּא? אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב: רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן הִיא, דְּאָמַר מְלָאכָה שֶׁאֵינָהּ צְרִיכָה לְגוּפָהּ פָּטוּר עָלֶיהָ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Some teach the statement of** Rav as referring **to this:** With regard to **one who traps a snake on Shabbat, if** he **engages** in **its** trapping **so it does not bite him, he is exempt; if** he does so **for medicinal** purposes **he is liable.** The Gemara asks: **Who is** the ***tanna*** who holds this way? **Rav Yehuda said** that **Rav said: It is Rabbi Shimon, who said** that for **a** prohibited **labor** performed **not for its own sake, one is exempt.**


###### Shabbat 107b:11
[Shabbat 107b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shabbat/r/107b:11)

אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: הַשּׁוֹלֶה דָּג מִן הַיָּם, כֵּיוָן שֶׁיָּבֵשׁ בּוֹ כְּסֶלַע — חַיָּיב. אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בַּר אָבִין: וּבֵין סְנַפִּירָיו. אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי: לָא תֵּימָא יָבֵשׁ מַמָּשׁ, אֶלָּא אֲפִילּוּ דְּעָבֵד רִירֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Shmuel said:** With regard to **one who removes a fish from the sea, when** an area on the skin of the fish **has dried up the size of a *sela*,** he is **liable.** A fish in that condition cannot survive, and therefore the individual who removed it from the water is liable for killing it. **Rabbi Yosei bar Avin said:** That is so **as long as** the skin that dried is **between its fins. Rav Ashi said: Do not say** that this *halakha* applies only in a case where **it actually dried. Rather,** it applies **even if** the fish has dried to the extent **that mucus has formed,** and if one were to touch that area it would stick to his fingers.


###### Shabbat 107b:12
[Shabbat 107b:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shabbat/r/107b:12)

אָמַר מָר בַּר הַמְדּוּרֵי אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: הוֹשִׁיט יָדוֹ לִמְעֵי בְּהֵמָה וְדִלְדֵּל עוּבָּר שֶׁבְּמֵעֶיהָ — חַיָּיב. מַאי טַעְמָא? אָמַר רָבָא: בַּר הַמְדּוּרֵי אַסְבְּרַהּ לִי, לָאו אָמַר רַב שֵׁשֶׁת: הַאי מַאן דִּתְלַשׁ כְּשׁוּתָא מֵהִיזְמֵי וְהִיגֵי מִיחַיַּיב מִשּׁוּם עוֹקֵר דָּבָר מִגִּידּוּלוֹ. הָכָא נָמֵי, מִיחַיַּיב מִשּׁוּם עוֹקֵר דָּבָר מִגִּידּוּלוֹ. אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: הַאי מַאן דִּתְלַשׁ

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Mar bar Hamdurei said** that **Shmuel said: One who reached his hand into the innards of an animal** on Shabbat **and detached a fetus that was in its womb is liable.** The Gemara asks: **What is the reason** for this? It does not make sense to consider the fetus as a full-fledged living creature. **Rava said: Bar Hamdurei explained** this **to me. Didn’t Rav Sheshet say: One** who **detaches hops** on Shabbat **from the shrubs and thorns** on which they are growing **is liable for uprooting an object from its** place of **growth? Here, too,** in the case of the fetus, **one is liable for uprooting an object from its** place of **growth. Abaye said: One who detached**