We did the Shulchan Aruch. If I’m not mistaken, we’re up to yud-chet. By the way, can we do yud-zayin first? Yesterday in the shiur (lesson), I said I wanted to go back to the way the Aruch HaShulchan understands the machloket (dispute) between the Rashba and the Ran. Look at yud-zayin: “Od ita sham bi-Yerushalmi: Hayah tzvi (deer) ratz kedarko”—there was a deer running as usual. “Ve-nitkaven lin’ol ba’ado,” and he intended to close the door for himself. “Ve-na’al ba’ado u-ve’ad ha-tzvi,” and he closed it for himself and for the deer. The halachah (Jewish law) says mutar (permitted). That is the wording of the Yerushalmi.
“Ve-yesh she-pirshu she-afilu yada she-ha-tzvi betocho”: some explained that he knew the deer was in the house. That is the Rashba’s explanation. His kavanah (intention) was only for ne’ilat beito (closing his house), and the deer was trapped mi-meila (automatically), so it was permitted. The Ran challenged this: How could that be? It is a psik reisha (inevitable result).
The Ran explains it differently: “She-hu asuk bi-ne’ilat beito ve-lo yada kelal she-ha-tzvi betocho.” He was occupied with closing his house and had no idea that the deer was inside. Afterward, he found the deer in the house, and it was permitted. Is it really permitted? He is not obligated to open the door to let the deer out. That is exactly what we saw inside.
Now the Aruch HaShulchan asks: Why does it say “mutar”? It should say “patur (exempt).” No, because it is mutar, not patur. According to the Ran, you might expect that he has to release the deer. “Ka mashma lan” (you don’t): he doesn’t have to. But why say “mutar”? Say “patur”—he doesn’t have to. Patur means “patur aval asur (exempt but forbidden).” No, patur means patur, while mutar means it is permitted.
The Aruch HaShulchan says, “Ve-eini meivin: de-im ken, mah chidshah Yerushalmi al ha-Mishnah?” What does the Yerushalmi add to the Mishnah? The Mishnah also says that if you close your door to protect your house and find a deer trapped inside, that is permitted. If you shut the door without knowing there is a deer inside, of course it is permitted. What is the chiddush (novel point) in that?
“Ve-nir’eh la-aniyut da’ati de-hachi peirusho”: this is how I understand the case. He is closing the door—“ve-omed bi-gmar ha-ne’ilah”—and the door is almost closed. In the middle of that, the deer comes in. In those days, the doors were not like ours, where you just slam them shut. You had to lift them and pull them. As he was doing that, the deer slipped inside. In that case, he is not obligated to stop himself from closing the door.
That is not a psik reisha at all, since he was not engaged in tzeidah (trapping). The deer slipped in at the last second, as he started closing the door. Maybe that is the Rashba’s intention. Do you understand? That takes the edge off the whole issue. According to this explanation, the man was closing the door, and there was no trapping involved. The door was almost closed; there was no deer and no trapping. At the last second, as he was closing it, a deer slipped inside. You might say, “That’s a psik reisha!” But it is not considered a psik reisha at all. You were not engaged in trapping; there was no deer until the end. You had already started closing the door.
That may be what the Aruch HaShulchan means when he explains the Rashba. The deer came in at the last second, while the door was being closed. It’s a tzvi is going to pass like Chacham, Chacham, Chacham. I’m not saying the odds are going to say that this is two-to-one odds. It doesn’t have to be a deer; it could be something else. It doesn’t have to be a fly; it could be something else. I agree, but what should I do? I have to say something. The Ran’s questions on the Rashba are too big to just dismiss the Rashba and say—
So the Ben Ish Chai said what he said, and Chacham Tzadka, whatever, said what he said. The Aruch HaShulchan wants to say something, but he doesn’t say “ulai, ulai” (perhaps, perhaps). His mahalach (approach) is very difficult in terms of the metzi’ut (reality) of the case. Why? As I close—Just a second. He pushed—Stop. First of all, obviously, we are talking about a place where people lived with deer. That is the whole metzi’ut. To us, that whole reality doesn’t exist. Who lives with a deer? There were deer, and there were people in the house.
It doesn’t have to be a deer; it could be any animal. No, it has to be a wild animal, not a domesticated one. That is minimo nitzad (its kind is hunted). You are probably not chayav (liable) for trapping a domesticated animal. A deer runs away; a dog doesn’t. So the example is a deer running in while you are closing the door. What is the din (law)? I’m closing the door to protect my house, and a deer slips through the gap. The Rashba says, “Continue closing the door.” You were entirely osek be-heter (engaged in permitted activity). You didn’t have this in mind? Bichlal lo (No, not at all)! It wasn’t even—
The way the Ran understood the Rashba, he thought the deer was already there and that you knew it was there. You were closing the door for the house, even though you—The Ran is saying, “Come on, that’s impossible. When I started, the deer wasn’t there. I closed most of the door; there was no trapping at all, and I continued.” That could be a different case. Anyway, that is the Aruch HaShulchan.
Look now at yud-chet, rabotai. We do not hold like the Rashba lema’aseh (in practice); we rule like the Ran. So lema’aseh, this is just pilpul (dialectical analysis), pilpul be’alma (mere analysis). Why doesn’t it say “eino chayav lehatiro (he is not obligated to release it)” instead of “patur”? You’re right; you have to read that into the Yerushalmi. “Mutar” means it is permitted to leave the door closed.
Why would you have thought you had to open the door and undo what you did? Once the trapping was done—No, you might have thought you had to undo it because you performed a prohibition: undo the trapping and get rid of it. You might have thought that was the hava amina (initial assumption). Maybe when you realize what happened, you want to show that lo nicha leih (he does not want it), so you open the door. But you clearly didn’t know the deer was there.
Maybe the explanation is that by leaving the door closed, now you know there is a deer inside. Leaving it closed could be mar’it ayin (appearance of impropriety): it could reveal lemafre’a (retroactively) that you were also pleased with the original closing. Why aren’t you opening the door now? The fact that you leave it closed reveals that, if there had been a deer, you would have been happy. The Aruch HaShulchan says we do not say that. When you closed the door, you didn’t know there was a deer there; what you did was entirely permitted. You don’t have to undo something that was entirely permitted. So the Gemara—the Yerushalmi—says “mutar,” meaning it is permitted to leave the door closed.
That is not how we would learn the Yerushalmi straight, but the Rishonim (early authorities) have to make sense of it. The Aruch HaShulchan had to say what he said about the Rashba, because otherwise, what is the Rashba teaching us? Correct. But according to this explanation, you still have the same question: what is the Rashba teaching us? No, because the door wasn’t fully closed yet, and then the deer came into the house. That is a big chiddush. You began a melachah (forbidden labor), but you didn’t finish. The trapping wasn’t complete yet; the door was still open, and now there was a deer in the house. Then you bring in the whole Aruch HaShulchan: he started it, but he didn’t do it for that purpose.
Yahya, read yud-chet for us, the next halachah. “Katvu haTur ve-haShulchan Aruch”—the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch wrote. This is a case that applies. “Se’if zayin: ha-tzad nechashim ve’akrabim beShabbat.” Nechashim ve’akrabim yesh bo. You are trapping snakes and scorpions. “O she’ar remashim (creeping creatures) hamazikim”—other damaging creatures. “O li-refu’ah (healing), im li-refu’ah chayav, ve-im bishvil shelo yishakhenu mutar.” If you are trapping it for medicine, you are chayav. You need it for some use. But if you are doing it because you are afraid it will bite you, and you just want to trap it so it won’t bite you—not kill it, just trap it so it doesn’t bite you—the Gemara says it is mutar.
It’s a danger, no? It’s pikuach nefesh (saving a life). That Mishnah seems to be saying that the rabbis waived trapping in a situation of—“Pikuach nefesh.” I didn’t say pikuach nefesh; I don’t need that. Gerimat nezek (causing damage). Maybe the reason is that these creatures are not normally trapped. We don’t trap snakes and scorpions; there is no trapping for those things. So at most it is derabbanan (rabbinic law). “Ein bemino nitzad”—it is derabbanan. Once it is already derabbanan, bimkom hezek (where damage threatens), they waived it. “Hem amru vehem amru” (they made the rule and they made the rule). It has to be serious harm, not like a mosquito.
What if a mosquito bites you? In the safari? Mosquitoes are the number one killer in the world. Is that so? Malaria. Okay, good. “Shelo yishakhenu”—I don’t want it to bite me. Let’s continue and see if we’re right. This is the Mishnah in perek bet of Eduyot (testimonies), and it is brought in Shabbat, se’if gimmel, at the end of perek yud-gimmel.
The commentary there explains that although the Mishnah says “patur,” this is one of the exceptional paturim in the Gemara. Every time it says patur, it means “patur aval asur.” This is an exception: patur aval mutar (exempt but permitted). There is an exception to every rule. The reason is that this is a melachah she-einah tzerichah le-gufah (labor not needed for its own purpose), and in a place where harm threatens, the rabbis did not decree against it.
That’s better than what I said. Do you need the mosquito? No. You don’t need it; you just want to get rid of it. So it is called a melachah she-einah tzerichah le-gufah: I just want to get rid of it. I don’t need the mosquito. Once it is a melachah she-einah tzerichah le-gufah, it is immediately derabbanan. Bimkom hezek. Bingo. But that’s the path we have to take: make it derabbanan, and then tzorech nezek (need to prevent damage).
“Ve-im hayah nezek bari”—if it was certain harm, for example, if they were chasing him, it would even be permitted to kill it. A bear or anything—Not a bear; even a mosquito or a yellow jacket. A bear! Where were you living? Morocco, how about that? How many people kill a mosquito when it wants to bite them? It’s coming at you, with the tail out. But “bari,” I don’t know. It isn’t coming at you over here. The point is that this is what is called a case where the harm is not certain. Therefore, an issur Torah (Torah prohibition) may not be violated for this, but the rabbis did not uphold their derabbanan prohibition in the face of concern about harm.
But if you are trapping it for refu’ah, because you want the creature, that is chayav. “Ve-im li-refu’ah, chayav mipnei keshe-yitzedum, keshe-yitzedam li-refu’ah.” He intends to trap them for medicine, so it is a melachah tzerichah le-gufah (labor needed for its own purpose), and he is chayav. This is not referring to a choleh she-yesh bo sakanah (an ill person whose life is in danger); if there is a life-threatening illness and you need the creature, of course you do it. That is pikuach nefesh.
But this is a problem. I don’t know why—he is obviously quoting Halachah Shabbat. Once you set it up this way—melachah she-einah tzerichah le-gufah, derabbanan, harm, mutar—that is the path we took. The Rambam holds that melachah she-einah tzerichah le-gufah is chayav. The Rambam ruled like Rabbi Yehudah. Go back to our history. So according to the Rambam, you don’t have this explanation.
I had a way out for the Rambam. I would have said that it is because “ein bemino nitzad.” Yes, if it is not normally hunted, automatically it is derabbanan. Finish! Derabbanan, bingo, you’re out. But he didn’t take that path, because this includes other cases too. Now you’re going to get stuck: if you take this approach, you have to deal with the Rambam. We have to see whether the Rambam gives you the heter (permission).
Look at the next paragraph: “Ve-hineh.” “Le-da’at ha-Rambam.” This is correct according to the authorities who hold that we rule like Rabbi Shimon, that melachah she-einah tzerichah le-gufah is not chayav. But the Rambam, in perek alef, ruled like Rabbi Yehudah, that melachah she-einah tzerichah le-gufah is chayav. It is impossible to explain that trapping it so it won’t bite you is permitted because it is a melachah she-einah tzerichah le-gufah. You can’t use that approach according to the Rambam.
In truth, the Rambam writes this at the end of perek yud-gimmel. We have to use the books as much as we can; we paid for them. Everybody take a book. Open the Rambam, perek yud, halachah kaf-heh. We’re learning in the Yad HaChazakah (Maimonides’ code), not the Moreh Nevuchim (Guide for the Perplexed) today. Open the Rambam, perek yud, kaf-heh in Hilchot Shabbat (Laws of Shabbat).
Wouldn’t you say that this is the normal way to trap something? If it’s for refu’ah, they know they can get medicine from it. I don’t know that trapping it for that purpose makes it the normal way to trap. It makes it tzerichah le-gufah, but not the normal way. The normal way is hunting animals for their hides, or trapping fish. You’re right; it happens that there is a hornet that you use as a cure. Use it as a—Where? A keychain, you know.
Perek yud, the last halachah, kaf-heh. “Remashim hamazikim, kegon nechashim ve’akrabim, ve-chayotze bahen, af al pi she-einan memitin (even though they are not deadly). Ho’il ve-noshechin (since they bite), mutar latzud otan beShabbat.” Since they bite, it is permitted to trap them on Shabbat. “Ve-hu she-nitkaven le-hinatzel mi-neshichatan (provided he intends to save himself from their bites).” The purpose is not refu’ah; you are doing it to save yourself so they won’t bite you. “Keitzad hu oseh (How does he do it)? Kofeh keli aleihen (he covers them with a vessel).” Like we do in the sukkah: take a cup, turn it over, and cover them. “O koshren kedei shelo yaziku”—or tie them so they won’t cause harm. It’s hard to tie a mosquito, but it is obviously a bigger creature, maybe a lizard or something like that.
He isn’t giving an example of a mosquito; he is talking about big animals. But that doesn’t go against what I’m saying. Wait, does he give you the size? “Remashim hamazikim, nechashim ve’akrabim.” Why does he give an example of those, and not yetushim (mosquitoes)? Is size what makes a difference? “Af al pi she-einan memitin”—even though they are not deadly. What difference does it make whether it is an elephant or a tiny hornet, less than a shi’ur (measure) of ke’adashah? Does size make the difference? It is whether it causes harm. How are you putting it under a cup? “Kofeh keli aleihen”—maybe you’re putting a soup dish over it. I don’t think size makes a difference. What is the sevara (reasoning)?
What do I care if a nachash (snake) causes harm? He says it isn’t deadly. A mosquito bites too. You have to put it in a different category, a mosquito and a—Why? Give me the chilluk (distinction). The olam (people) sees a mosquito, sees an akrav (scorpion), and runs for his life. I run from them too. Baruch Hashem, there are no scorpions here, but now we have mosquitoes. Yellow jackets—do you agree they sting? What about a mosquito? Why yellow jackets? They’re small too. A mosquito on a newborn, how about that? I don’t have your geder (category). You agree about a yellow jacket? On a baby? Of course, a yellow jacket stings. Because you can have an allergic reaction to it. But a mosquito is a pain too. Not a pain—it’s unpleasant; you can get an infection.
Rabotai, what is his mechanism? Chazak u’varuch (well done and blessed). Does the Maggid Mishneh say anything? What about the Kesef Mishneh? No. Open up the Aruch HaShulchan; we’ll explain the Rambam. Start the next paragraph. The interesting thing is that the Rambam doesn’t mention refu’ah here. He only mentions damage; he doesn’t say that if it’s for refu’ah, it is chayav. The Maggid Mishneh brings that. Correct—the Rambam clearly allows you to protect yourself, but we have to see how he gets there.
Look at the Aruch HaShulchan: “Ve-ha de-im li-refu’ah chayav ve-shamit.” Why did he leave out the refu’ah part? Yechya, continue. Which line? The fourth line. “Kedei shelo yishkenu havei heteira, mishum de-chatav mikodem be-halachah kaf-alef de-shekatzim u-remasim she-yesh be-minam tzeidah, ha-tzadan bein le-tzorech bein shelo le-tzorech o lesachek bahem chayav, ve-ho’il ve-nitkaven la-tzud u-mi-meila gam li-refu’ah chayav.” It’s true: he mentioned it above. “Ve-zeh she-katav ho’il ve-nitkaven la-tzud tzarich bi’ur.” Why did the Rambam say that in halachah kaf-alef? Rabotai, open up halachah kaf-alef. Yahya, we need you. “Shemonah sheratzim ha-amurim ba-Torah ve-echad she’ar shekatzim u-remasim she-yesh be-minam tzeidah”—the eight creeping creatures mentioned in the Torah, and other creeping creatures whose kind is hunted. They are prohibited by Torah law. “Ha-tzad echad mi-kulan bein le-tzorech bein shelo le-tzorech o lesachek bahen chayav.” The Rambam doesn’t care whether it is for a use or not. Even if it is not for a use, melachah she-einah tzerichah le-gufah is prohibited by Torah law according to him.
“Ho’il ve-nitkaven la-tzud”—he says it directly: because you intended to trap them. But why does the Rambam have to say “nitkaven la-tzud”? Even if you didn’t intend to, it is a pesik reisha. Once again, the Rambam says you are chayav only if you intended to trap it. If you say, “I didn’t intend to,” it is still a pesik reisha. That is the Aruch HaShulchan’s question on the Rambam. Why did the Rambam have to say “nitkaven”? He could have said that if you cover it and trap it, you are chayav, whether or not you intended to.
The Aruch HaShulchan writes: “Ve-zeh she-katav ho’il ve-nitkaven la-tzud … u-mi-meila de-gam li-refu’ah chayav.” And what he wrote, “ho’il ve-nitkaven la-tzud,” requires explanation. Why? Even if he didn’t intend to trap it, it is a pesik reisha. So we have to explain the Rambam.
“Omnam ha-kavanah kan hu de-ve-tzeidah keshe-lo nitkaven la-tzud ela le-hagen shelo yishakhenu, ein zeh bi-chlal tzeidah kelal.” That is what he means: if you aren’t intending to trap it, but to protect yourself so it won’t bite you, that isn’t considered trapping at all. “Eino mitkaven” means it could be that this is not called trapping. If you’re doing it for another reason—“I’m doing it because I don’t want it to bite me”—that is what he means by “ve-hu she-yitkaven.” But if you aren’t intending to trap it, why are you trapping it? For a different reason: you don’t want it to bite you. That is all he means. Why? Because he says that it is not called tzeidah at all.
What does trapping mean? “De-tzeidah ikkar kavanato le-tzudo li-reshuto.” The main intention in trapping is to bring it into your possession. Here, you don’t want to bring the fly into your possession; you just want to get rid of it. “U-ve-chan ikkar kavanato le-harchiko”—the main intention here is to keep it away. Exactly. I don’t want to trap it; I want to get rid of it. It is the exact opposite. Therefore, the issue of melachah she-einah tzerichah le-gufah does not apply here. Right: you can’t say melachah she-einah tzerichah le-gufah, because first there has to be a melachah. Then we decide whether it is tzerichah le-gufah or not. But this is not even a melachah. “De-ein zeh melachah kelal.”
Chazak! Since it is the opposite of the main intention of the melachah, as it says—Nu, nu, nu. “Ve-zehu she-amar sham, ve-hu she-hitkaven le-hinatzel mi-neshichatan ve-chu’, kofeh alav keli,” meaning, even in this case it is not considered trapping. Chazak! It is not bi-chlal tzeidah. So the Rambam answers the question: it is not a melachah at all.
Open the Shulchan Aruch. Even if it is minimo nitzad, does that not matter? Yes! You don’t have to say that. On the contrary, this applies even if it is a creature whose kind is normally trapped. Open up Maran. Bring me Gary’s books over here. You got it? Beautiful. Maran is in shin-tet-zayin, halachah zayin: “Ha-tzad nechashim beShabbat o she’ar remasim hamazikim, im li-refu’ah, chayav.” That is melachah she-tzerichah le-gufah. “Ve-im bishvil shelo yishakhenu, mutar.”
The Mishnah Berurah says he is chayav because it is a creature of a kind that is normally trapped. Why? It is normally trapped? Ah, you’re right. Ben Yitzchak is correct. I don’t know why that is called minimo nitzad, but that is what he says. Because of the snake’s hide, no? Interesting: he calls it minimo nitzad because you use it for refu’ah, so that is what makes it a kind that is normally trapped. Oh, really? Okay.
Now you have to look at the same case: it is minimo nitzad. He says, “Ve-im bishvil,” that means even in a place where people do not usually die from snakes, and the snakes aren’t chasing him but are just standing where they are, you may not run over and kill them. Even so, trapping them is permitted: you cover them with a vessel or tie them up. The reason is that it is a melachah she-einah tzerichah le-gufah. You don’t need to trap it except so it won’t bite you. If you knew it would stay there and not harm you, you wouldn’t trap it. We hold that melachah she-einah tzerichah le-gufah is patur aval asur mi-derabbanan; here, because of the harm, there is not even a derabbanan prohibition. Even the Rambam, who holds that one is chayav for melachah she-einah tzerichah le-gufah, agrees in this case. Why? The authorities write that the reason is that he considers this not a melachah at all. It is like mit’asek be’alma (an entirely inadvertent act), since he does not want the trapping itself; on the contrary, his intention is to drive the creature away. Gorgeous sevara. Great sevara.
Now look at page 22 in Gary’s book. “Ayen be-Shut Yabi’a Omer. Ayen be-Shut Yabi’a Omer, she-he’erich le-hochi’ach she-kol melachah she-hi le-tzorech refu’ah necheshevet melachah tzerichah le-gufah ve-chayav aleha.” Here is the proof: he calls trapping for refu’ah melachah tzerichah le-gufah because you need the animal for medicine. He adds that it is clear there is no difference between trapping a snake for medicine made from its flesh or medicine made from its venom. It does not matter which part of the snake is used for the medicine. When you need it, or when you trap it because you will need it soon, that is melachah tzerichah le-gufah.
Then he writes, “Ve-afilu le-haRambam, ayen be-ve’ur din zeh le-da’at ha-Rambam be-Shut Yabi’a Omer chelek alef, Orach Chayim siman chaf-alef, ot gimel.” Chacham, can you bring us Yabi’a Omer, chelek alef and chelek heh? Obviously, Chacham Ovadiah has an approach to the Rambam. We have one approach to the Rambam. I like this approach. It is not called trapping at all. How can you call it trapping when I’m trapping the animal not in order to trap it, but to get rid of it? It is the exact opposite of trapping. So it is not a melachah. Stop: it’s not a melachah. I don’t care whether it is le-gufah or not le-gufah; it is not a melachah. Turning on a light is a melachah. Now we have to discuss le-gufah or not le-gufah. Turning off a light is a melachah, le-gufah. But something that is not a melachah is the opposite of the melachah.
That is how the Mishnah Berurah understood it, and that is how the Aruch HaShulchan understood it too. Chacham Ovadiah may have a different approach, but the outcome will not change. According to all the poskim (halachic authorities), you will be able to do such a thing. I don’t think it will make a difference whether it is Shabbat.
By the way, according to this, if I’m sitting in the sukkah on Sukkot and yellow jackets are all over me—You said the sukkah case isn’t allowed; the Mishnah Berurah said—Huh? Why? We said there’s a—To kill them, maybe it is asur. To turn the cup over them, why not? Maybe for bugs that won’t harm me, but what about a yellow jacket that can sting? Take the cup and cover it. I don’t have to make a hole in the cup so it can escape. Bring me chelek alef. Which siman? Siman chaf-alef, ot gimel? Yes, sir.
What did we say about that? Right or wrong, that seems to follow. I’m sure Menuchat Ahavah will tell us that it is mutar. We didn’t talk about that in daily halachah. Someone check daily halachah. You said something about insect spraying. Check daily halachah on trapping, yellow jackets, and the sukkah.
We can also use this to understand the Rashba a little more. Let’s read this Rambam for a moment. “Ve-tabet einai le-haGaon mi-Brisk, mi-Brisk, be-Chidushei Rabbeinu Chaim HaLevi, Rav Chaim al ha-Rambam, she-katav she-ha-Rambam sevirah leih ke-da’at he-Aruch de-pesik reishei de-lo nicha leih mutar.” Let’s go slowly. The Aruch is a famous shitah (position). The Aruch holds that when the result is inevitable, but de-lo nicha leih—he doesn’t want the result—it is mutar. Even on a Torah level?
He writes that the Rambam, perek yud, halachah yud-zayin, says: “Ha-map’is shechin beShabbat.” You open a boil on Shabbat to let out the pus, “kedei le-harchiv pi ha-makah,” in order to enlarge the opening. You want a summary, Rabbi? A summary of what? Of the yellow jackets? Yes.
Generally speaking, trapping animals and insects is forbidden on Shabbat, with the possible exception of potentially harmful insects, such as bees. One who wishes to cover an outdoor trash can on Shabbat should either leave a small opening so flies inside the can can escape, or first shoo away any flies he sees. That is a big one: covering the garbage can when there are bugs inside. There’s no danger there. That’s why people wouldn’t even think of it; they just put the cover on the garbage can. One may spray insect repellent into the air on Shabbat, but not directly on an insect. He must leave at least one window open to allow the insects to escape, and the insect must be causing discomfort to those in the room. That halachah is about spraying. What did we say about covering something in the sukkah? We were talking about spraying insect repellent on Shabbat. What else? We didn’t talk about anything else. I searched for bees and yellow jackets. Mosquitoes? I searched for trapping. Are you spelling sukkah with a Q or a—
The Rambam says that if you open the boil, the shechin, “harei zeh chayav mishum makeh be-patish (finishing labor).” Why? “She-zo hi melechet ha-rofeh”—that is what the doctor does: he makes the opening bigger as part of the treatment. That is makeh be-patish. But if he opens it to remove the pus inside, and he is not trying to make a proper opening, the Rambam says, “harei zeh mutar.” Fine.
He also writes: “Remashim hamazikim, kegon nechashim ve’akrabim ve-chayotze bo, af al pi she-einan memitin, ho’il ve-noshechin, mutar latzud otam beShabbat, ve-hu she-yitkaven le-hinatzel mi-neshichatan.” As long as your kavanah is to save yourself from their bites. “Keitzad hu oseh? Kofeh aleihem et ha-keli.” Then the Maggid Mishneh asks: The Gemara in Shabbat explains this according to Rabbi Shimon, who holds that melachah she-einah tzerichah le-gufah is patur. But the Rambam rules that one who performs melachah she-einah tzerichah le-gufah is chayav. How can he say that it is permitted? That is the Maggid Mishneh’s question according to the Rambam.
Rav Chaim HaLevi answers the Rambam. When you open a boil to let the pus out, the permitted case is when you are not intending to make an opening, but only to let the pus out. As the Mishnah teaches, if you intend to make an opening, you are chayav; only when your intention is solely to let the pus out is it permitted. So it turns out that this is a davar she-eino mitkaven (unintended act), which is patur on Shabbat according to everyone.
There are two things here, rabotai: melachah she-einah tzerichah le-gufah, and another principle called davar she-eino mitkaven. Don’t mix the two up. What is davar she-eino mitkaven? You are not intending the melachah you are doing. When I open the boil, I am not intending to make an opening; I am intending only to let out the pus. That is clearly a davar she-eino mitkaven. Once you say it is a davar she-eino mitkaven, it is automatically derabbanan. Everyone agrees; there is no machloket on davar she-eino mitkaven. The machloket is about melachah she-einah tzerichah le-gufah.
But it is a pesik reisha: the bottom line is that an opening is being made. What do I care whether you intended it? The Aruch holds that a pesik reishei de-lo nicha leih (inevitable result he does not want) is mutar. This is a pesik reishei de-lo nicha leih. He is not intending it; it is the same idea. Similarly, according to the Rambam, trapping a snake is permitted when you intend to save yourself from its bites. It turns out that you are not intending to trap it at all, but only to save yourself. That is a davar she-eino mitkaven with a pesik reisha de-lo nicha leih, which is patur on Shabbat according to everyone. That is Rav Chaim’s explanation, in brief.
Rav Chaim calls it a davar she-eino mitkaven. You are not intending to trap it; you are intending to get away from it. So it is derabbanan, and in this situation the rabbis did not decree against it. It is a pesik reisha, but it is lo nicha leih.
Then Chacham Ovadiah says, “U-lefi aniyut da’ati, tzarich iyun (requires further study).” In this case, it is not a davar she-eino mitkaven, because he is performing the act of trapping. The purpose is not to use the snake, but he is still intending to perform the trapping. He is intending to trap the snake; he just doesn’t need the snake itself. This is more like melachah she-einah tzerichah le-gufah than davar she-eino mitkaven. He is intending to perform the trapping, just not for its usual purpose. So it is not in the category of davar she-eino mitkaven; it is melachah she-einah tzerichah le-gufah, and it requires further study.
So Chacham Ovadiah argues with Rav Chaim. Rav Chaim wanted to say that the Rambam holds like the Aruch: a pesik reishei de-lo nicha leih is mutar. What is his proof? This is a pesik reisha, but you weren’t intending to trap it, so it becomes derabbanan. That would be like closing the door when you knew there was a deer inside. It would automatically be derabbanan because you weren’t intending it. This is a pesik reisha, lo nicha leih. Why is it lo nicha leih? Because you would rather not trap it at all; you don’t want the creature there in the first place. But Rav Chaim is saying “eino mitkaven”: you aren’t intending to trap it; all you’re doing is getting rid of it. Chacham Ovadiah says no: you cannot call this a davar she-eino mitkaven. You are intending to trap it; you may not be intending the result. He rejects Rav Chaim’s explanation, but that is another approach.
Lema’aseh, do you hear what he is saying? Is there anything more? So lema’aseh, does Rav Ovadia agree? Now I want to know lema’aseh: can I have a yellow jacket in the sukkah and cover it? We need to know the halachah lema’aseh. Who will bring me the halachah lema’aseh? Bring me Chacham Ovadiah, Chazon Ovadia Sukkot. Do we have Yalkut Yosef Sukkot? In English? Anything. Bring me Chazon Ovadia Sukkot.
When you say davar she-eino mitkaven, is that the same thing as the garbage can? That would be a good analogy. That is a pesik reisha. So is the other case a pesik reisha? They are trying to say that pesik reisha she-eino mitkaven is mutar. If that is how we establish that it is okay, then it is the same with the garbage can. What do I need to make a hole in my tarp for? But he says the Rambam doesn’t hold that way.
I would analyze the garbage-can question this way: these bugs are not normally trapped. So covering the can is, let’s say, mi-derabbanan. It is a pesik reisha, because I’m not intending to trap them. Pesik reisha mi-derabbanan de-lo nicha leih—why would it be forbidden to cover the garbage can on Shabbat? Why did we say it was forbidden? I only read the summary. You have the whole halachah. Read it to me, please.
It is about spraying insect repellent. One of the thirty-nine categories of forbidden activity on Shabbat is shochet (slaughtering), which includes netilat neshamah (taking a life). It is forbidden to kill animals or insects on Shabbat. Therefore, halachah would forbid spraying insect repellent in a manner that will invariably cause an insect to die. One may spray insect repellent into the air, as opposed to directly on an insect, and open at least one window to allow the insects to escape. The Chazon Ish ruled more stringently: one may spray under these conditions only if there is an ill patient in the home for whom the insects cause discomfort. Most other authorities, including Rav Moshe Feinstein in his work and Halacha Berurah, allow spraying into the air even if nobody in the home is ill, provided one leaves the window open and the insects are causing discomfort to those in the room.
One of the thirty-nine categories of forbidden activity on Shabbat, tzeidah, forbids trapping animals on the level of Torah law. This prohibition applies only to creatures classified as minimo nitzad, meaning species that people normally hunt. Trapping other animals is forbidden only by rabbinic enactment. The Rema, in his glosses on the Shulchan Aruch, writes that one must be careful not to close on Shabbat small receptacles that may contain flies, because then he would be trapping the flies. Therefore, if one sees a trash can—Oh, by the way, I was relying on that. When we read that Rema in Garrisons, where was it? Did we give the address? Rema in gimmel, shin-tet-zayin gimmel, correct?
Look at shin-tet-zayin gimmel: “Mi she-zahir shelo lisgor.” You see “shelo lisgor.” Look at the book. There are no numbers. “Ve-yesh mekilim.” The Veit Yosef rejects the Terumah’s proof that it is forbidden to close a box containing flies, because it is permitted: flies are not a kind that is normally trapped. Nevertheless, he concludes that since he did not explicitly indicate that he disagrees with the author of the Terumah, he does disagree. But the Shulchan Aruch omitted this ruling.
Why did Maran bring up the case of closing the garbage can? His intention was to be lenient, since he ruled earlier according to the Terumah: a pesik reishei de-lo nicha leih is mutar. So if trapping flies is only prohibited mi-derabbanan, because their kind is not normally trapped, then if he does not intend to trap them, it is permitted. You’re right: it should be permitted. The Rema says it is asur, but Maran does not. But now you have Maran in the next paragraph. The Shulchan Aruch rules that one may trap an insect that can potentially harm a person. So we did not give Maran’s opinion on that Rema. We have to say clearly: according to Maran, you can cover the garbage can on Shabbat. You don’t have to be choshesh (concerned) about this. It is a pesik reisha mi-derabbanan de-lo nicha leih. Vos art leh (what does it matter to him), whatever it is.
Very good, Steve. You put us back on track. Now let’s see if he talks about it in hilchot sukkah. Is it pesik reisha, shin-yud-bet bet? Shin-yud-bet bet? Shin-yud-alef? Maybe mitzta’er (one experiencing discomfort). Where would it be? Zevuvim (flies)? It says Yabi’a Omer, chelek dalet. It talks about it? But it was dvorim (bees), so maybe it is the same thing. Dvorim means bees. Yes, go get Shut Yabi’a Omer, chelek dalet. Orach Chayim, siman—We have to come out with clarity.
“Hilchot arba’at minim (laws of the four species), hilchot sukkah. Inyan yeshivah ba-sukkah (the matter of dwelling in the sukkah). Mutar le’ashen sigariyot ba-sukkah (it is permitted to smoke cigarettes in the sukkah).” Okay, boys, are you happy now? Tzarich iyun. You can smoke in the sukkah; now are you happy? Do we have Chazon Ovadiah here? “Im yardu geshamim (if rains fell).” Let’s see. Is this Chazon Ovadiah? “Ha-ochel ugot (one who eats cakes), peirot (fruit), achilah (eating), Zohar HaKadosh.” Let’s see if there’s anything about bugs. “Ha-mitzta’er patur min ha-sukkah (one who suffers is exempt from the sukkah).” Cold, distress, one who eats in the sukkah, an ill person, a groom, those on a mitzvah mission, a circumcision feast, travelers. Give me an address.
Chelek dalet, Orach Chayim, “be-chol yemei ha-sukkah, adam she-hu ochel,” siman lamed-dalet, ot tet-zayin. “Yardu geshamim.” A guy who sits in the sukkah when he isn’t supposed to shouldn’t do it. “Sheinah ba-sukkah.” “Yardu geshamim.” That’s it; he doesn’t talk about it. What does it say over there? Page 16, I think. Can you give me the number? Tet-zayin, siman lamed-dalet. “Hineh ha-Tur hevi Mishnah de-amrinan de-asur lin’ol beShabbat teivah she-yesh bah zevuvim, kedei yeter eizeh davar bein ha-kisuy la-teivah bi-khdei she-yuchlu latzet misham.” You’re quoting me the Rambam business? This is the—Yes. No, I know what he’s going to tell me. It’s on the—That’s going to tell me there’s no problem; it is a pesik reisha. “Ilkach, zevuvim, af al pi”—that’s Maran. “Af al pi she-einan nitzadin.” Correct. So if we go on, he is going to say “af al pi she-einan nitzadin.” So he is going to allow you to close it, bottom line? “She-ein be-minan nitzad, asur letzudan”—that’s flies. But I want to discuss a case where I’m trapping a yellow jacket in the sukkah. Apparently, that should be mutar according to what we’re learning. Maran says flies are asur to trap. Flies don’t cause harm, honey. I’m talking about a yellow jacket that stings. In the sukkah, why not cover it? Take a plastic cup and cover it. That should be mutar.
The Mishnah Berurah says, “Ilkach zevuvim u-dvorim.” It says “u-dvorim”; that suggests, according to the Veit Yosef, that bees are included among creatures whose kind is normally trapped. Okay, it is minimo nitzad, but if I’m doing it to trap it—It says it is derabbanan. We have it in shin-tet-zayin, tet? Shin-yud-zayin, tet? Your halachah says it. 316, I’m sorry. “Therefore, for example, if bees fly around the table in the sukkah, it is permissible to trap them, even on Shabbat and Yom Tov.” We haven’t done that halachah yet. Continue. “Even on Shabbat and Yom Tov.” Beautiful! Is that the whole thing? That’s the end of what he was reading. So it is in there. Did we number the halachot? 316:9. We’re up to that; we haven’t read 9 yet. We read 8, shemonah sheratzim (eight creeping creatures). No, we didn’t read 9. Maybe there he’ll tell me it’s okay.
What we said is mutar, by the way? All right, it is mutar; it has to be mutar. One may trap an insect that can potentially harm a person. Beautiful. So, by the way, on Shabbat, during Sukkot, if you’re sitting in the sukkah and want to put a cup over the yellow jacket, yesh le-hakel (one may be lenient). A mosquito too? It is the same geder, because sakanah (danger)—What else? Not sakanah. Not sakanah. Hezek (harm). Hezek. Okay, baruch Hashem, we found it. At the end of the day, it makes sense.
Now go to the next halachah. Rabotai, that’s that. Are we up to kaf in the Aruch HaShulchan? We’re up to kaf, which is halachah—What are we up to in the Shulchan Aruch? Chet? Where is chet in this book? Chet is kaf-gimmel. We’ll start that tomorrow. Tomorrow we have to go to kaf-gimmel. But still, a little mussar (ethical teaching). Baruch Hashem le’olam amen ve’amen (Blessed is Hashem forever, amen and amen). Tomorrow we start kaf-gimmel.