Komentarz do Edujot 2:5
שְׁלֹשָׁה דְבָרִים אָמְרוּ לִפְנֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל, וְלֹא אָמַר בָּהֶם לֹא אִסּוּר וְהֶתֵּר, וּפֵרְשָׁן רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן מַתְיָא. הַמֵּפִיס מֻרְסָא בְּשַׁבָּת, אִם לַעֲשׂוֹת לָהּ פֶּה, חַיָּב, וְאִם לְהוֹצִיא מִמֶּנָּה לֵחָה, פָּטוּר. וְעַל הַצָּד נָחָשׁ בַּשַּׁבָּת, אִם מִתְעַסֵּק שֶׁלֹּא יִשְּׁכֶנּוּ, פָּטוּר, וְאִם לִרְפוּאָה, חַיָּב. וְעַל לְפָסִין אִירוֹנִיּוֹת, שֶׁהֵם טְהוֹרוֹת בְּאֹהֶל הַמֵּת וּטְמֵאוֹת בְּמַשָּׂא הַזָּב. רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בֶּן צָדוֹק אוֹמֵר, אַף בְּמַשָּׂא הַזָּב, טְהוֹרוֹת, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁלֹּא נִגְמְרָה מְלַאכְתָּן:
R. Yishmael zadał trzy pytania, a on nie rządził „zakazanym” lub „dozwolonym” oraz R. Yehoshua ur. Matiya wyjaśnił je [tj. Kiedy, był odpowiedzialny; i kiedy nie ponosi odpowiedzialności]: nakłucie ropnia w szabat—jeśli zrobi dla niego otwór, jest odpowiedzialny [za „boneh” („budynek”)]; a jeśli usunąć z niej ropę, nie ponosi odpowiedzialności. [Albowiem jest to „praca, która nie jest potrzebna sama w sobie” (poród jest otwarciem). I to (ropień) nie wymaga odtąd otwierania, tak że otrzymuje tylko rabiniczny issur, który z powodu współczynnik bólu nie został określony. Dlatego nie ponosi odpowiedzialności i jest to dozwolone].
Bartenura on Mishnah Eduyot
ופירשן רבי יהושע – when he is liable and when he is exempt.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Eduyot
Introduction
Mishnah four, which we learned yesterday, contained three things that Rabbi Yishmael had said in front of the Sages in Yavneh. Mishnah five contains three things which Rabbi Yishmael did not know how to explain, and Rabbi Joshua ben Matya explained them for him.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Eduyot
אם לעשות לה פה חייב – because of [the Sabbath prohibition] of “building.”
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Eduyot
They stated three things before Rabbi Yishmael, and he pronounced none of them either unlawful or lawful; and Rabbi Joshua ben Matya explained them.
One who lances an abscess on the Sabbath: if it was to make an opening he is liable; if it was to bring out the pus, he is exempt. The first issue about which Rabbi Yishmael did not know how to answer is one who lances an abscess on the Sabbath. Rabbi Joshua ben Matya explained that if he did it in order to make a permanent opening in the abscess, then he is obligated for breaking the Sabbath. This type of work is considered to be like “constructing” which is forbidden. If, however, he intended to let out the pus, he is exempt, for his intention was not to “construct” an opening. The fact that an opening was constructed is an unintended by-product, for which one is not generally liable on the Sabbath.
One who lances an abscess on the Sabbath: if it was to make an opening he is liable; if it was to bring out the pus, he is exempt. The first issue about which Rabbi Yishmael did not know how to answer is one who lances an abscess on the Sabbath. Rabbi Joshua ben Matya explained that if he did it in order to make a permanent opening in the abscess, then he is obligated for breaking the Sabbath. This type of work is considered to be like “constructing” which is forbidden. If, however, he intended to let out the pus, he is exempt, for his intention was not to “construct” an opening. The fact that an opening was constructed is an unintended by-product, for which one is not generally liable on the Sabbath.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Eduyot
ואם להוציא ממנה ליחה פטור – for it is labor that is not necessary for its own sake, for the opening is the labor, and this is not necessary for there to be an opening for it from now, and there isn’t here other than a Rabbinic prohibition and because pain is not decreed, it is exempt and permitted.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Eduyot
And concerning one who hunts a snake on the Sabbath: that if he was occupied with it in order that it should not bite him, he is innocent; but if that he might use it as a remedy, he is guilty. Hunting is forbidden on the Sabbath. If a person should kill a snake in order to prevent it from biting him, he is exempt since the death of the snake is an unintended by-product. His true intent was to protect himself. If, however, he kills the snake to use it for medicine, he is liable since his intention was to kill the snake.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Eduyot
אם מתעסק שלא ישכנו פטור – and that it is not necessary for its own sake of the thing being hunted, and if he would known that he could stand and it (i.e., the snake) would not bite him, he would not hunt it. And in this also, the Rabbis did not decree, and it is exempt and permitted.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Eduyot
And concerning Ironian stewpots: that they do not contract impurity when under the same tent as a corpse; but become impure if they are carried by a zav. Rabbi Eliezer ben Zadok says: “Even if they are carried by a zav they remain pure, because they are unfinished.” Ironian stewpots are clay pots that were made by villagers. They were at first made into hollow balls and then split in half to create two pots. The issue here is what type of impurity can these pots receive. Rabbi Joshua ben Mattiah explains, that as long as they have not been opened, they are considered to be covered clay pots which do not receive impurity by being in the same roofed structure as a corpse (see chapter one, mishnah fourteen). If a zav, a person who has had an abnormal genital discharge, should carry one of these jars it is impure, since clay jars can receive impurity by being carried by zavim. However, Rabbi Elazar ben Zadok, a later Sage, points out that they are not even made impure by contact with zavim. There is a general rule that a vessel which has not been completely finished does not receive impurity. Since Ironian pots are not completed until they are split in half, it can’t receive any impurity.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Eduyot
לפסין אירוניות – a closed/stopped-up earthenware vessel made like an hollow ball from the inside, and after they glaze it in a kiln/furnace, they sever it in its middle and it is made into two utensils.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Eduyot
טהורות באוהל המת – as long as they have not severed it, for an earthenware vessel is not susceptible to receive defilement from its exterior, other than from its airspace, as it is written (Numbers 19:15): “And every open vessel, [with no lid fastened down, shall be unclean],” through its opening, it defiles, but it - does not defile from the exterior, and this has no open air space.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Eduyot
וטמאות במשא הזב – through defilement by movement (even by indirect movement by means of a lever), for if they were carried or moved from the contact with someone with a flux, they are impure, and even though they have no open air space.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Eduyot
מפני שלא נגמרה מלאכתן – for the cutting that is made in their middle, this is the completion of their work [of creation]. But the Halakha is not according to Rabbi Eleazar ben Zadok, but glazing in a furnace is the completion of their work, therefore they become defiled through contact with the person who has a flux even before they are divided.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy