All right, Rabotai (my teachers), we’re in Shin-Tet-Zayin, in the Aruch HaShulchan (The Set Table), up to Chaf-Tet. We have one more se'if (section) to do before we go back to the Shulchan Aruch (The Set Table). We’re talking about the shemonah sheratzim, the eight sheratzim (creeping creatures) that the Torah forbade. We have a problem of tzad, trapping them, and we also have a problem of making a chabalah (wounding). Then we discussed mekalkel (destructive act). Normally, mekalkel is patur (exempt) on Shabbat. However, mekalkel bechaburah (destructive wounding) and mekalkel biserifah (destructive burning) come out as a machloket (dispute) between Rabbi Yehudah and Rabbi Shimon.
Rabbi Yehudah understands that mekalkel bechaburah and mekalkel biserifah are patur, even though he generally holds that melachah she'einah tzerichah legufah (labor not needed for its purpose) is chayav (liable). Here, it’s reversed: he holds that these cases are patur. Rabbi Shimon, who says that melachah she'einah tzerichah legufah is patur, says here that mekalkel bechaburah and mekalkel biserifah are chayav. That’s the Gemara. The Aruch HaShulchan brought down the shitot (opinions) yesterday to explain it.
Therefore, HaRambam, for example, will be posek (rules) like Rabbi Yehudah. Since he holds like Rabbi Yehudah that melachah she'einah tzerichah legufah is chayav, in Chaf-Chet we said, “Velachen HaRambam sheposek keRabbi Yehudah bimelachah she'einah tzerichah legufah, lachen pasak bechovel vetzarich ledam, umavir vetzarich le'efer.” “Chovel vetzarich ledam” means wounding when you need the blood, and “umavir vetzarich le'efer” means burning when you need the ashes. Why did he say that in those cases you have to need the ashes and the blood? Because otherwise it’s mekalkel. Therefore, according to HaRambam, mekalkel bechaburah and mekalkel behava'arah would be patur.
That’s why he had to say that if you make a chabalah and don’t need the blood, that’s a stam (ordinary case) of mekalkel: you don’t need the blood. Or, if you make a fire and don’t need the ashes, that’s kilkul (damage). Those two cases are the exceptions. That’s what Rabbi Yehudah is going to say, and that’s why HaRambam rules like him, heavy mekalkel. The question is whether HaRambam is bound to that shitah because he holds like Rabbi Yehudah that melachah she'einah tzerichah legufah is chayav.
The Gemara says that if you hold like Rabbi Yehudah, this is how it comes out, and if you hold like Rabbi Shimon, that is how it comes out. It doesn’t seem that it has to work that way. Logically, you could hold that melachah she'einah tzerichah legufah is asur and still hold that these cases are asur anyway. Look at Chaf-Zayin, the one before that. We explained the Gemara: “Ude'a, devechammah mekomot beShas nimtza plugta deRabbi Yehudah veRabbi Shimon bemekalkel bechaburah uvehav'arah, deda'at Rabbi Yehudah poter veRabbi Shimon mechayev. Vechulfo shitatam. DeRabbi Yehudah dimechayev bimelachah she'einah tzerichah legufah poter bemekalkel bechaburah uvehav'arah, veRabbi Shimon depoter be'einah tzerichah legufah mechayev.” That’s the Gemara. Rashi explained how it works.
But now we want to know the halachah lema'aseh (practical halachah). We generally rule like Rabbi Shimon. Maran holds like Rabbi Shimon: melachah she'einah tzerichah legufah is patur. So we have to see how we rule regarding this machloket. The shitot are reversed. At first glance, Maran should also say, “Chabalah ve'einah tzerichah ledam chayav,” because if you hold patur, here it reverses. But the problem is that it’s not so. How do you reconcile our opinions?
In the Rambam, it’s straightforward. HaRambam rules that it is patur unless you need the blood or the ashes; otherwise, it would be mekalkel. HaRambam works properly. However, according to us, three lines from the bottom on Chaf-Chet, it says: “Vehen emet dehaTur vehaShulchan Aruch lo nachtu bechiyuvim,” meaning that the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch did not specify liabilities, “decheivan de'afilu mekalkel asur miDerabbanan shuv lo nachtu lechalek bein chiyuv de'Oraita levein...” “Umikol makom al kol dineha yesh lanu da'at, eicho leshitah zo?” In any event, we know all the laws. How does that fit with this opinion?
According to shitat Rashi, it certainly does fit. As we read yesterday, “DeleRabbi Shimon ein chayavin bechovel umeva'er af al pi she'ein tzarich leshum davar.” According to Rashi, if you hold like Rabbi Shimon that melachah she'einah tzerichah legufah is patur, then you are chayav for mekalkel in these two cases. That was Rashi’s opinion. We’re in Chaf-Zayin, I guess.
It says there: “Ude'a debzechamah mekomot beShas nimtza plugta deRabbi Yehudah veRabbi Shimon bemekalkel bachaburah uviverah, deRabbi Yehudah poter veRabbi Shimon mechayev, ve'uchlefu shitatam, deRabbi Yehudah demechayev bimelachah she'einah tzerichah legufah poter bemekalkel bachaburah uviverah, veRabbi Shimon depoter beshe'einah tzerichah legufah mechayev.” Rashi, of blessed memory, explained the matter on daf kuf-vav: “Vechein hu hatza'ah shel shemu'ah.” He is explaining Rashi: “Dehineh minalan dehatorah chiyvah bechovel.” How do we know that the Torah makes one liable for wounding? That is the Gemara’s question: “Chovel mena lan?” Where do we see that the Torah makes one liable for wounding? From brit milah (circumcision), because the pasuk (verse) says, “Uvayom hashmini yimol besar orlato (On the eighth day he shall be circumcised).” The Gemara says, “Uvayom hashmini, afilu beShabbat (even on Shabbat).”
Why do we need a pasuk? When you perform the milah, it’s a chabalah. You don’t need the blood. It’s a plain chabalah; it’s really a chabalah, so it’s kilkul. The Gemara says that from here we see that a pasuk was needed to say that it is permitted. That implies that other kinds of chabalah, outside of brit milah, are forbidden, including other kinds of chabalah similar to brit milah where you don’t need the blood. Technically, you would say it is kilkul, and still you would say it is chayav.
Continue: “Dehineh milah havei chabalah”—milah is clearly a chabalah—“vehaTorah hetiratah beShabbat.” The Torah permitted it on Shabbat. “Ve'i salka da'atach dechovel lo ne'esrah min haTorah”—if you say that wounding is not forbidden by Torah law—“lamah hutzrechah lehatir hamilah? Ha ein kan isur klal min haTorah.” Why would the Torah need to permit milah? There would be no Torah prohibition at all.
“Vechein behav'arah”: the Torah forbade the court to execute a girl on Shabbat. “Bat kohen ki techel liznot.” The law concerning a bat kohen (daughter of a priest) who commits zenut (sexual immorality) is, “Ba'esh tisaref (She shall be burned in fire).” The Torah says you can’t do that on Shabbat. What do we see from this? Srefah (burning) is again kilkul: you burn the woman, and you don’t need her ashes, yet we say that you are chayav. “Vechein behav'arah asrah Torah bebat kohen shezintata dechayevah bisrefah, ve'asrah Torah beShabbat, velamah asrah?” Why does the Torah forbid it? “Veharei mekalkel hu.” It’s mekalkel; you’re burning the woman. And still we say you need a pasuk to say you can’t do that on Shabbat. Therefore, “ela shema minah demekalkel behav'arah chayav.” That’s it: you see that mekalkel behav'arah is chayav.
You’re burning her alive. You don’t need her ashes or anything; you’re destroying her, getting rid of her. That’s kilkul. Normally we say, “Kol hamekkalkelin peturin”—all those who perform destructive acts are exempt. Here we say that burning a girl on Shabbat is chayav, forbidden by Torah law. How can it be forbidden by Torah law if it is mekalkel? “Kol hamekkalkelin peturin!” “Ela mah hizbir?” That was an exception: “demekalkel behav'arah asur min haTorah.” That’s the Gemara.
Continue: “UleRabbi Yehudah svira leih de'ein kan kilkul.” Rabbi Yehudah says you have no proof from executing a woman that hav'arah bekilkul is forbidden by Torah law. Why? “Keivan sheyesh bishneihem mitzvah,” because in both cases there is a mitzvah (commandment) to do it. “Shapir havei metaken.” So Rabbi Yehudah first looks at it and says this is not kilkul. Why isn’t it? You burned her to death, but it’s a positive commandment: there is a mitzvah to burn the girl, and there is a mitzvah to perform brit milah. He argues with the premise that you call this kilkul. It’s not kilkul (damage); it’s metaken, a positive thing.
But Rabbi Yehudah has a problem: “Ve'af al gav dezehu melachah she'einah tzrichah legufah.” It’s a melachah she'einah tzerichah legufah. “She'ein tzarich tachlit hamelachah.” You don’t need the labor itself; you need the mitzvah. According to Rashi, in the end this isn’t really melachah she'einah tzerichah legufah. You don’t need the burning itself; you need the mitzvah. But Rabbi Yehudah holds that melachah she'einah tzerichah legufah is chayav. So, bottom line, Rabbi Yehudah makes one liable for melachah she'einah tzerichah legufah, and that too is forbidden by Torah law, but it isn’t kilkul. It’s an ordinary case of melachah she'einah tzerichah legufah. That’s why the Torah forbids it when there is a positive purpose.
Now consider a similar case of hav'arah or chabalah without a mitzvah. Since Rabbi Yehudah says that if it is kilkul, it is patur, you have to create a scenario where it isn’t kilkul. The mitzvah made it not kilkul in milah and srefah of a bat kohen. Outside of those cases, you have to say either, “I need the blood,” or, “I need the ashes.” If you don’t need those things, you go back to the case of kilkul, and the ordinary rule is that kilkul is patur.
He says: “Vechen be'eizeh tikun sheyihyeh”—not only a mitzvah, but any tikun (improvement)—“kegon bechovel keshetzarich dam lechalbo umav'ir keshetzarich le'efro.” In those cases, “ve'af she'einah tzrichah legufah chayav.” Why? First, melachah she'einah tzerichah legufah is chayav. Are you a mekalkel here? But Rabbi Yehudah has no rule that mekalkel bechaburah is patur; he has no case or source for that. He learned from the Torah’s case that it is not kilkul, but a tikun (improvement). So the fact that this is mekalkel doesn’t prove that this mekalkel is any different. That’s why he is chayav.
Why does he need the blood for the dog? If mekalkel is chayav, even if he didn’t need it for the dog, it should be chayav. If mekalkel bechaburah and mekalkel biserifah are chayav, why does Rabbi Yehudah require that you need it for the dog? Even if it’s complete kilkul, this is an exception. The answer is that he doesn’t have that exception. He didn’t learn from the Torah’s cases of srefah and milah that they are kilkul; he said they are tikun. So go back to the regular rules. “Ina hachi nami”: in this case, too, Rabbi Yehudah will agree that if you are mekalkel, you are patur. What case is chayav according to Rabbi Yehudah? “Shetzarich ledamo veshetzarich le'efro.” Otherwise, it is an ordinary case of mekalkel. That is Rabbi Yehudah’s opinion.
“VeRabbi Shimon, demelachah she'einah tzrichah legufah patur, ein kazeh tikun le'etzem hamelachah, vaharei hi melachah she'einah tzrichah legufah, ve'im kazeh chiyvah Torah.” According to Rabbi Shimon, he looks at the Torah’s cases as kilkul. In those cases, you don’t need the blood, and still the Torah says you are chayav. So Rabbi Shimon treats them as an exception to the general rule that mekalkel is patur: mekalkel bachaburah, in milah, and in srefah is chayav.
Now we go to the halachah. HaRambam—that is how Rashi sets up this sugya (Talmudic discussion)—rules like Rabbi Yehudah. That school of thought understood the Torah’s cases of milah and hav'arah as tikun according to Rabbi Yehudah. Therefore, there are no special exceptions to “kol hamekalkelin peturin”: tikun is tikun. HaRambam writes that when you make a chabalah and need the blood, or perform srefah and need the ashes, you are chayav. It implies that if you don’t need the ashes or the blood, you are patur, because you caused kilkul.
Rabbi Yehudah holds it is an ordinary rule. There is no source that hav'arah is an exception. But wait: this is kilkul; you destroy the item. You make a chabalah and he bleeds to death, and he doesn’t need the blood. Ordinarily, melachah she'einah tzerichah legufah is chayav because of Rabbi Yehudah, but HaRambam holds this is kilkul. You made a chabalah; that isn’t a positive thing, and you can’t argue that it isn’t kilkul. Therefore, it goes back to the regular laws of kilkul, and “kulam mekalkelim peturim.” HaRambam is consistent: he rules like Rabbi Yehudah. If you accept that approach, then if it’s kilkul, it’s kilkul. If you make a chabalah on somebody or an animal, and the blood comes out, then if you need the blood, it’s clearly a tikun—you needed it, and it was a positive thing. If you don’t need the blood, then although melachah she'einah tzerichah legufah is normally chayav according to Rabbi Yehudah, this is kilkul. You are mekalkel. HaRambam makes no exception, and “kulam mekalkelim peturim.”
The last question is whether we should be consistent with Rabbi Shimon, whom we rule like. Rabbi Shimon understands the sugya to mean that mekalkel everywhere is patur, except for two cases of mekalkel that are chayav: hav'arah and chabalah. So if Maran rules like Rabbi Shimon, at first glance he should rule that by chabalah, even if you don’t need the blood, you are chayav, because those cases are exceptions.
Look at kaf-tet: “Vehineh leshitat Rashi vadai ken hu.” You’re right. If you learn the sugya the way Rashi does, “de-le-Rabbi Shimon chayavim bechovel umeva'er af al pi she'ein tzarich leshum davar,” then that is how it comes out according to Rashi’s opinion.
However, “rabbenu raboteinu Ba'alei HaTosafot chidshu.” The scholars of Tosafot introduce a new point. “Bizeh dele-Rabbi Shimon gufeih yesh pelugta beGemara sham bizeh.” Tosafot understands that there is a dispute in the Gemara about how to understand Rabbi Shimon. “De-Rav Abbahu svira leih dele-Rabbi Shimon chayav belo shum tikun,” as we just said: you don’t even need a tikun, and Rabbi Shimon will say you are chayav. It’s the exception. “Ve-Rabbi Yochanan svira leih de'afilu le-Rabbi Shimon tzarich tikun ketzat”—you need some kind of tikun, either the tikun of a mitzvah or a case where you need the blood or the ashes. In that case, it is called tzarich legufah, because the mitzvah itself is performed in that way: “tzrichah hamelachah legufah shel melachah kedei la'asot hamitzvah.”
“Omnam chovel vetzarich hadam lechalbo umeva'er vetzarich le'afro vadai zeh mikrei ein tzarich legufo.” He says that wounding when you need the blood, or burning when you need the ashes, is still called ein tzarich legufo. What does that mean? “O kemo chofer gumah ve'ein tzarich ela le'afrah”—like a chofer gumah (one who digs a hole) who doesn’t need the hole, only the dirt. He calls that a melachah she'einah tzerichah legufah. This is now a dispute about the geder (framework) for understanding melachah she'einah tzerichah legufah.
Exactly: he says, “I didn’t need this hole,” which is the issur (prohibition) here, the digging. “I just needed the result.” We always thought that if you need the result, it is a melachah shetzrichah legufah. But he says, “I don’t need the issur. I would rather have the dirt without making a hole. Give me the blood; I want to make a…” So even though you need it, that is called melachah she'einah tzerichah legufah.
“Velo mashkachat lah ela chovel umeva'er be'issur hana'ah (prohibition of benefit).” When would you have a case where it is really tzrichah legufah? “Bechovel umeva'er be'issur hana'ah, shesaver sheyachol liten lechalbo ulevashel bo kedeirah, de-be'issur hana'ah she'ein ra'ui leshum davar mikrei zeh tzarich legufah.” I guess you have to burn an item that is forbidden for benefit. The burning is then tzrichah legufah: you need to burn it. You can’t say, “I’d rather not burn it”; you have no choice. He thought he could give it to his dog, because he thought it wasn’t forbidden for benefit. He was wrong; he isn’t allowed to give it to his dog. But when he burns it, he wants to burn it, because it isn’t fit for anything other than burning. “Vezehu hochiyach haRav Tosafot sham de'afilu le-Rabbi Shimon dimechayev bemekalkel bachavurah uviv'arah, mikol makom matzrich melachah tzrichah legufah.” Even though the Gemara says Rabbi Shimon is chayav for mekalkel bachavurah, you still need a melachah tzrichah legufah.
That is Tosafot’s approach. Tosafot learns the sugya to say that mekalkel bechaburah can indeed be chayav, but it still has to be a melachah shetzrichah legufah. Therefore, “ulefi zeh shitat Tosafot bechovel uvehav'arah patur, levad mehav'arah dehi be'isur hana'ah, de'ishtamesh be'efer chayav.” According to Tosafot, in the ordinary case of wounding, even if you need the blood, it is still called melachah she'einah tzerichah legufah according to Rabbi Shimon. Needing the blood doesn’t make it a melachah shetzrichah legufah, because you would rather have the blood without making the wound. So according to Rabbi Shimon, you are patur in that case too.
What case in the Torah would make you chayav? Mekalkel bechaburah when it is tzrichah legufah. One example would be an item forbidden for benefit, where there is nothing else you can do with it. The main thing is to destroy it; it doesn’t matter that the act is destructive. Rabbi Shimon holds that mekalkel bechaburah is chayav, but Tosafot adds that even according to Rabbi Shimon, it is only in a case of melachah shetzrichah legufah. If it is melachah she'einah tzerichah legufah, the same rules apply, and you are patur according to Rabbi Shimon too. In the Torah’s case, it was tzrichah legufah because it was a mitzvah to perform the milah.
So Rabbi Shimon’s opinion is consistent. Rashi and HaRambam are different. No, HaRambam does not hold like Rabbi Shimon; HaRambam holds like Rabbi Yehudah. According to us, who rule like Rabbi Shimon, the Aruch HaShulchan will tell you, “ledidan, in hachi nami”: don’t think that if you are mekalkel—for example, you made a chabalah on a dog and the blood came out, and you didn’t need the blood—you will be chayav according to Rashi. Tosafot says that even if you need the blood, it is still called melachah she'einah tzerichah legufah. Why? Because he defines melachah shetzrichah legufah as needing the body of the thing. Here you need the result, but not the actual act of making the wound. It’s like chofer gumah ve'eino tzarich ela le'afrah: I don’t need the hole; I need the dirt. Similarly, I need the result, but not the actual wound. I would rather not make a chabalah.
So when would you be chayav for wounding according to Rabbi Shimon? Only in a case of issur hana'ah, where you couldn’t do anything else with the item but burn it. What about wounding? The case is milah. Outside of milah, how would wounding apply in the case of a dog? Wouldn't this depend on what av melachah (primary category of labor) you hold this is? Meaning, if you hold that it is issur mishum shochet, the whole etzem of shechitah (ritual slaughter) is killing the animal. In that case it would be a nafka minah (practical difference) if you're just making a chaburah by itself, but if it's tzove'a (dyeing) then anything that comes out, you're going to be chayav. There’s no tzove'a by a dog. It would be netilat neshamah (taking a life), or shechitah. No, a dog’s blood coming out is not tzove'a. So finish: that would be netilat neshamah. Call it netilat nefesh, whatever you call it.
Look up Maran, Rabotai, in chet. Maran in chet. “Shemonah sheratzim ha'amurim baTorah... hatzadan chayav.” The eight sheratzim that the Torah forbade: “hatzadan... hatzadan chayav.” If you trap them, you are chayav. Why? Because they are bemino nitzod (normally trapped of its kind). “Vehachovel bahem,” “af al pi shelo yatza mehem dam,” even if no blood comes out, “ela nitzrar tachat ha'or,” if it is bruised beneath the or, the skin, you are chayav. Period. So the Mishnah gives you two laws here: “hatzadan chayav,” and “vehachovel bahem”—even if the blood didn’t come out, you are also chayav. The blood gets caught between the skin.
The Mishnah Berurah says: “Dehineh mitechilah bi'er hamechaber din tzeidah (trapping) bechayah va'of (wild animals and birds),” which we already learned in halachah alef. Remember halachah alef? “Hatzad tzippor dror” (sparrow), then bet, “hatzad tzvi” (deer), and then all the cases of “kol shebemino chayav alav.” Zvuvim (flies). He went through the ordinary animals first: “Ma'aseh tzvi shenichnas letoch habayit.” Those were all the cases. Now he is going into the eight sheratzim.
“Vehineh mitechilah bi'er hamechaber din tzeidah bechayah va'of, deve'otan haminim stamayhu nitzodim letzorech.” The point of those other cases is that those kinds of animals are usually trapped for a purpose. That’s why you are chayav if you trap them for a purpose. “Ve'achshav bi'er hamechaber din tzeidat sheratzim,” because sometimes you trap a sheretz without needing it. “Devehahu yesh chiluk.” Those kinds that have skins are normally trapped for the skin, so you are chayav. “Vehu hashemonah sheratzim ha'asurim ha'amurim baTorah, hacholed, ha'achbar, hatzav,” and so on. There is trapping because, as a rule, they are trapped for this purpose. If a person explicitly intended not to trap them for a purpose, he is patur. Ordinarily, they are trapped for their skins, so ordinarily you are chayav for trapping them for their skins. That is because it is melachah she'einah tzerichah legufah if you don’t need the skin. If you do need the skin, it is melachah shetzrichah legufah, and you are chayav. You need the skin, so you are trapping it for its purpose.
“Aval, she'ar sheratzim ein lahem orot.” Ordinary sheratzim don’t have skins. So why are you trapping them? Usually, it’s just to get rid of them; it isn’t for a purpose, unless you explicitly intend to use them for a purpose. Basically, we are using the ordinary intention: for the eight sheratzim, unless we know otherwise, the usual intention is for their skins, and therefore “hatzadan chayav.” For other sheratzim that don’t have skins, the usual case is that you are patur, as will be explained later.
Now go to the wounding part. The Mishnah Berurah says: “Hata'am lechiyuv chabalah mipnei netilat neshamah, shebe'oto makom,” because in that place “ki hadam hu hanefesh.” Therefore, even if a little blood comes out, or a little blood is bruised, you are chayav.
Now the Mishnah Berurah explains “bahem.” Why does Maran, or the Mishnah, give the case of wounding a sheretz? Why not give the case of wounding any animal? Because with sheratzim there is a distinction: some have skin and some don’t, and that affects liability for wounding. “She'ein lahem or ve'eino chayav ad sheyeitzei hadam.” If it has no skin, you are not chayav until the blood actually comes out, as the author concludes. But certainly there is liability for wounding a domesticated animal, wild animal, or bird; they all have skin. Don’t think that because he wrote the law of wounding in connection with sheratzim there is no wounding liability for other animals. There certainly is. The new point about a sheretz is that different kinds differ: for one with skin, you are chayav even for a bruise, and for one without skin, you are chayav only when the blood comes out.
“Vechol zeh meiri keshetzarich ledam hachabalah lechalbo o le'eizeh inyan.” The Mishnah Berurah adds that this is specifically when you need the blood of the wound, perhaps for your dog or for meat that has bruised blood in it to feed your dog. “De'ilav hachi, havei bichlal mekalkel upatur.” If not, it is included in mekalkel and is patur. Clearly, the Mishnah Berurah says that if you don’t need the item, it is mekalkel, and therefore patur. Who is that like? He is quoting mem-vav, mem-vav in the zeh, the Pri Megadim. That is the first opinion of the Mishnah Berurah: follow the regular rule, “Kol hamikalkelim” are peturim. Here, you have to make it not mekalkel. How? “Vetzarich ledamo.” Since we hold like Rabbi Shimon, he must be calling that a melachah shetzerichah legufah. So it isn’t like Tosafot. He must hold that needing the blood is considered a melachah shetzerichah legufah, and therefore you are chayav. Otherwise, it is mekalkel and you are patur. That is one way of learning the sugya.
Then he says: “Veyesh min haposkim shesovrim delefikach chayav benitzrar hadam.” Some of the poskim say that this is why you are chayav when the blood doesn’t come out, but gets caught beneath the skin: “Ve'ein zeh bichlal kilkul ela tikun.” On the contrary, it is a tikun. Why? “Shederech ha'olam lehakotah kedei lehachlishah sheyehe noach likabesh.” People hit it to weaken it so it will be easier to trap. So that hitting is beneficial; it is a tikun. Even if you don’t need the blood, the fact that you hit it in order to weaken it is already considered a tikun. One opinion says you need the blood to be chayav. Others say that even if you don’t need the blood, weakening the animal is enough of a melachah shetzerichah legufah: you weaken it so it will be easier to trap. That is a different opinion. Which opinion? On mem-zayin he says it is the Me'iri.
That’s a question in itself. One opinion says you need the blood to be chayav, and some say, “No, even if you don’t need the blood, the act of striking is a positive thing.” What if you wounded a person out of revenge? You shouldn’t do that, but suppose you did. Or you wounded someone else’s animal, or bird, or wild animal out of revenge, and blood came out or was bruised. The Rambam’s view is that you are chayav in every case. Why isn’t it mekalkel? Because you got your anger out. “Pashat al bo.” You got your revenge. “Veha'tam mipnei shemeyashev et da'ato badavar, vezeh yanu'a yitzro, veho'il bachamato shochechet badavar zeh harei hu kimetaken vechayav.” It settles his mind and calms his anger, so it is like a metaken and he is chayav. The same law applies to tearing something in anger. The Rambam says it isn’t mekalkel; it calmed you down.
Remember that Rambam? The Ra'avad argued. The Ra'avad says, what do you mean? The Gemara says that tearing things in anger is “ke'ilu oved avodah zarah (idolatry)” (as if he worshipped idols). From the fact that the Gemara calls it avodah zarah, the Ra'avad says, you can’t consider it a positive act. It’s kilkul: “ein kilkul gadol mizeh.” Even if you’re doing it to forget your anger, on the contrary, forgetting your anger is avodah zarah. He understands that the Gemara rejects the idea that it is tikun.
In any case, everyone agrees that there is a prohibition here. Even if it is kilkul, it is still asur. Kilkul doesn’t mean permitted. “Dechol hamikalkelim behilchot Shabbat, af shepeturim mechatat, mikol makom asurim.” All those who perform destructive acts on Shabbat, even if they are exempt from a sin offering, are still forbidden. Don’t think that because we call it kilkul, it is permitted. It is patur.
That’s why you have to be very careful not to hit any living creature on Shabbat in a way that could cause a chabalah. Every destructive act is patur aval asur (exempt but prohibited). It could be that you would be chayav chatat (liable for a sin offering), but for sure it is forbidden. In any case, everyone agrees there is a prohibition, and people stumble in this matter.
What about brushing your teeth on Shabbat and causing your gums to bleed, if you’re someone who bleeds? He has to be careful. That could be a davar she'eino mitkaven (unintended act). Is it a pesik reisheh (inevitable consequence)? If you know, you know. I’m just giving an example. A person picks at his skin and causes himself to bleed. There are cases where he has to be concerned. You also can’t pick a pimple on Shabbat, because the blood comes out. You can go in and take out the blood that’s inside, but then you are making a chaburah.
What does a person do if he needs insulin on Shabbat? That is a medical matter; it’s permitted, probably. But am I allowed to give an insulin shot to somebody else? They can give it to themselves. They need it. Can I give it to somebody else? That’s pus—because in that case I’m not taking blood out. My son? I know somebody’s son. With the pimples, if the person takes out the pus, he’s walking a dangerous line; when blood comes out, he is going to be chayav.
“Ve'im hu makiz dam be'adam lirfu'ah,” the Mishnah Berurah gives a case of drawing blood for medical purposes. If you do it for medical purposes and there is no sakanah (danger), or you do it to an animal, “chayav lekulei alma,” because it is included in metaken. This is drawing blood, not giving insulin. You’re taking blood out because it will help the person. If you do it for an animal, you are chayav, because it is clearly not mekalkel; it is also a melachah shetzerichah legufah, because he wants the wound. He wants the chabalah.
Therefore, extracting a tooth is a Torah-level labor. Taking out a tooth on Shabbat causes a chabalah. You want the tooth out because it’s rotten or for some other reason. It is included in wounding for medical purposes. The Magen Avraham also wrote: “Hotza'at shen lekisui yesh bo lekulei alma chiyuvei chatat.” The blood wound that happens in that way is not needed for its own purpose. You don’t need the blood coming out, so it could be that it is melachah she'einah tzerichah legufah, and therefore he would be patur. But it would still be asur.
Now, Rabotai, go to 26. Here it is, 26. David, Maya, do you want to read 26 for us in Gary’s book? You don’t have it. The Bi'ur Halachah has a nice piece. You want to read the Bi'ur Halachah instead? It’s a long piece. I know it’s long, but how do you know it’s nice? Do you want to give us the review? All right, let’s pretend you didn’t say that. Let’s just go to 26 in Gary’s book. Shlomi, do you want to read it?
“Le'inyan lachtzotz.” Using a toothpick on Shabbat, when a person causes himself to bleed, is what he is discussing: “le'inyan lachtzotz bekisam sheyesh chashash sheyeitzei dam, o lechached harbeh bivsaro.” He’s rubbing because it itches. “Katav Kaf HaChayim Palagi shelo ya'aseh chen lechatchilah, vechen da'at haBen Ish Chai, shetov venachon shelo yachtzotz shinav bekisam keivan sheyesh chashash sheyeitzei dam.” There is a concern that blood might come out. According to the Ben Ish Chai, don’t use a toothpick, because there is a concern that blood will come out. If the blood comes out, you don’t need it, so it is melachah she'einah tzerichah legufah and patur. Still, what does the scholar have in the margin? “Ribono shel olam!”
But the Yalkut Yosef writes that, according to the basic law, the matter is permitted since you don’t need the blood. It is melachah she'einah tzerichah legufah, which is only forbidden rabbinically, and in a situation of tza'ar (driving me crazy), our Sages did not prohibit it. If something is stuck between a person’s teeth, it can drive him crazy; he has to get it out. You’re right that it is melachah she'einah tzerichah legufah, but add the element of distress.
But it is also a davar she'eino mitkaven. You could do it without causing blood to come out. It’s uncertain whether the blood will come out, so why is it permitted? It isn’t guaranteed; it’s not a pesik reisheh, and we hold that a davar she'eino mitkaven is permitted. Maybe the Ben Ish Chai is stringent when it is certain. He says there is a concern that blood will come out. He’s putting something sharp in his mouth, and it’s difficult to say that it won’t cause a scratch. Maybe it will scratch you, so he’s saying not to get involved. But in a case where it is certain that blood will come out, how do you know it’s impossible to remove the food without scratching yourself?
Halichot Olam decides here that the matter is permitted according to the basic law, because you don’t need the blood. He is saying that even if it is a pesik reisheh, according to Chacham Ovadiah, you don’t need the blood, so it is melachah she'einah tzerichah legufah, and it becomes rabbinic. It is a rabbinic pesik reisheh. “Lo nicha leih delo ichpat leih”: the blood doesn’t matter to him. The whole thing is not desirable to him. Still, he says, “umikol makom lechattechilah yizaher shelo yotzi dam.” In the first place, be careful not to make blood come out. If it does, there is no problem. Do you have volume four of Halichot Olam? You left the floss? No, my fault. This is about using a toothpick and things like that. Are you saying it is permitted even if the blood will definitely come out?
“Ule'inyan tzachtzu'ach hashinayim bemavreshet.” Do you have volume four, page kaf-vav? Let’s see how Chacham Ovadiah discusses brushing teeth on Shabbat. “Tov lehizaher milirchotz shinav bemachat sheyesh chashash sheyotzi dam.” It is good to be careful about cleaning the teeth with a toothpick when there is concern that blood will come out. “Lechorah harei shaninu,” they taught that one may use a hand-held needle to take out a kotz, a splinter, on Shabbat, “velo chasheshu shema yotzi dam.” Why weren’t they concerned in that case? That’s also a case where you go in and remove something. The Shulchan Aruch ruled that way. Why isn’t the needle muktzeh (set-aside item)? Because you can use it to remove a splinter. The Magen Avraham wrote, “Uvilvad sheyizaher shelo yotzi dam”: be careful not to make blood come out, because wounding is important, as we know from Sanhedrin.
But Chemed Moshe disagrees with the Magen Avraham and holds it is permitted even if blood comes out, because in a situation of distress the Sages did not prohibit it, even in such a case. It is a situation of distress; it is melachah she'einah tzerichah legufah, and “lo gazru,” they did not prohibit it, as in Tosefet Shabbat. The conclusion of the responsa literature is that even if it is certain to cause a wound, it is still melachah she'einah tzerichah legufah, and in a situation of distress they did not prohibit it. The Sefer Terumah proves this from the case of using a needle to remove a splinter: even though it wounds and brings out blood, it is permitted.
The Mishnah Berurah’s Bi'ur Halachah, siman shin-chet, se'if yud-alef, seems to agree with Chemed Moshe. But later, in the Mishnah Berurah, he brings the Magen Avraham’s ruling, and in another place he is stringent. There is a contradiction. Perhaps it is specifically where it is impossible to remove the splinter without wounding, for example, when it is lodged deep, that it is permitted if there’s no other way to remove it. But where one can be careful, it is forbidden. Maybe in that other case he was talking about being able to do it another way.
In any event, as Chacham Ovadiah says, perhaps the rabbi who wrote the later part of the Mishnah Berurah wasn’t the one who wrote the earlier part. They say his son completed some of the Mishnah Berurah, some simanim—not really the Mishnah Berurah, he holds. In Michtavei Chafetz Chaim he writes about this. Perhaps he was sick or something, and his son took over those parts, and his son had a different opinion. That could explain why sometimes there are contradictions; it doesn’t necessarily mean the Chafetz Chaim forgot what he wrote.
In any case, it seems that if you are careful not to make blood come out, but it doesn’t work and blood comes out, there is no problem. Even if it happened in a way that is a pesik reisheh, it is not desirable to him, and it is rabbinic. We hold that mekalkel bachaburah is patur in practice. The person who wounds is chayav only if he needs the blood, for example, to give it to his dog. That is also the Rambam’s ruling. Sefer HaMe'orot writes similarly.
And what does he say above? It is permitted according to the law to clean one’s teeth with a needle or to remove a splinter, even if blood comes out. Since you don’t need the blood, it is melachah she'einah tzerichah legufah, which is only forbidden rabbinically, and in a situation of distress they did not prohibit it. That is his way of permitting it in a situation of distress. If it’s a person’s ordinary routine before going to sleep, and he wants to floss, I don’t know why he doesn’t just say it is a rabbinic pesik reisheh delo nicha leh. He doesn’t give you that permission here; he gives you the permission because it is melachah she'einah tzerichah legufah in a situation of distress.
“Al kol panim nir'eh she'im nizhar shelo lehotzi dam, lo ta'ah behotza'at hadam, she'afilu im na'asah bederech psik reisha, kevan delo nicha leh behotza'at hadam, harei zeh psik reisha delo nicha leh derabbanan.” Why is it rabbinic? Then he adds, “she'eino tzarich ladam”: you don’t need the blood, so it is melachah she'einah tzerichah legufah. Maybe that is why they are stricter with melachah she'einah tzerichah legufah. How can you apply pesik reisheh delo nicha leh to a melachah she'einah tzerichah legufah? It is patur aval asur on a rabbinic level. And in any case, this is a labor. There is a fine distinction between melachah she'einah tzerichah legufah and a davar she'eino mitkaven. Pesik reisheh is a sevara (reasoning), although we apply it to closing lights and other things.
In the refrigerator case, you have to make a change. Opening a light is a Torah-level prohibition. You could argue that you don’t want the light, but that isn’t true; it’s a regular LED light. Chacham Ovadiah says it is rabbinic, so it would be a rabbinic pesik reisheh. If I’m hungry in the middle of the night and can’t see, can I open the refrigerator? That isn’t distress. He’s thirsty? You’re only bringing a case where the light isn’t wanted. The light is wanted when the door is open; that’s why there’s a light in the refrigerator. It’s a fine point.
They’re talking about closing the refrigerator, not opening it. They say closing it is melachah she'einah tzerichah legufah. Even then, Chacham Ovadiah tells the story himself: he didn’t want to let the person close it; he called a goy (non-Jew) to do it. Specifically, he used a goy to close it. That is shevut dishevut (rabbinic prohibition compounded) in some situation—maybe tza'ar; I don’t know about tza'ar. Why is he using shevut dishevut to do it? Sometimes you want to open it and leave it in a way that the light is not wanted. Closing a light because you want to go to sleep is a classic case, but we don’t say it is a rabbinic pesik reisheh delo nicha leh there. You want the light closed. In this case, he doesn’t want the blood; it is not desirable for him to bleed. So it is a melachah she'einah tzerichah legufah and a rabbinic pesik reisheh delo nicha leh. But he doesn’t say that this is the ultimate permission. He says that because it is melachah she'einah tzerichah legufah in a situation of distress, it is allowed; still, you should try to do it without making blood come out. You really shouldn’t do it for no reason. The Ben Ish Chai says not to do it at all; Chacham Ovadiah says you can do it, but try not to make blood come out.
What if it’s your regular routine? He doesn’t say that. He says, “yizahar shelo yotzi dam”—try to do it without making blood come out. What if a person has splinters? Does the Ben Ish Chai let him remove them? If you floss once a week, is that a pesik reisheh? If it’s a pesik reisheh, it’s chayav. But if you do it every day? When you don’t intend it, a pesik reisheh is chayav. Look at the next one, Rabotai. That is Chacham Ovadiah: you can use a toothbrush on Shabbat.
“Ule'inyan tzichitzuch hashinayim,” brushing your teeth, “katav beshut Yabi'a Omer she'im eino bevaddai sheyetze dam yesh lehatir.” It’s the same issue with brushing your teeth: if you’re not certain that blood will come out, there is room to permit it. “Umikol makom adam sheragil latzet dam mechanichav,” if a person is accustomed to bleeding from his gums, “vehavei psik reisheh be'inyan hotza'at dam, yesh le'esor.” He says that if it is a pesik reisheh concerning bringing out blood, it should be forbidden. No, there is no tza'ar here. Even there, he would have said, “vehavei psik reisheh be'inyan hotza'at dam yesh le'esor.” If blood only comes out sometimes, then it isn’t certain, and it is permitted to use a toothbrush.
So what is the difference? He says that if it is a pesik reisheh, it is forbidden. Right, he doesn’t rely on pesik reisheh here. Why not? He doesn’t say. He says it is melachah she'einah tzerichah legufah in a situation of distress, and that it’s good to be careful that blood doesn’t come out. At the bottom he is saying that even if blood did come out, it would be a pesik reisheh that is not wanted, but he works around it. Bottom line, you have to know your own case. Exactly. At the end of the day he is doing melachah she'einah tzerichah legufah, and the way he holds is stricter. That’s why it would be forbidden. That’s what he said.
Do you have Yabi'a Omer, volume four? Let’s look at that. What is the teshuvah (responsum) about, the toothbrush? He is still discussing brushing teeth on Shabbat, not toothpaste, the actual brushing, and specifically the bleeding. If you don’t bleed—No, I’m saying there are other issues about brushing teeth. He isn’t talking about toothpaste. I’m not talking about anything else, just using a wet brush. Toothpaste is a separate discussion. Could toothpaste also be an issue? At first glance, why doesn’t he just say it’s a rabbinic pesik reisheh delo nicha leh, as he usually does?
Remember, we learned in Shin-Mem-Bet that the Mishnah Berurah says melachah she'einah tzerichah legufah, when Maran says “kol davar she'eino ma'aseh midivrei sofrim,” is a higher category. Maybe that’s the reason here. He probably doesn’t want to rely on the stricter category among other rabbinic prohibitions. First, you have the Rambam, who says it is a Torah prohibition. And the Gra says it’s fine. That’s what I’m saying: it’s hard to articulate the difference. The scholars are struggling to find it. What makes it melachah she'einah tzerichah legufah? Do you need the blood or not? Pesik reisheh is a stringency in the law of davar she'eino mitkaven. Add the Rambam to that as well. Everybody agrees that, according to the Gra, it is melachah she'einah tzerichah legufah. Siman Lamed-Bet. But according to the Rambam, that is chayav, so maybe he doesn’t apply pesik reisheh in the case of a davar she'eino mitkaven.
Is this it? Volume four, Orach Chayim, siman Lamed? Do me a favor: explain the difference between a davar she'eino mitkaven and a davar she'eino tzarich legufo. Try. This is sechitah (wringing). He says, “Ve'aval le'eleh shelo hurgelu bekach vehavei psik reisha be'inyan hotza'at dam, yesh le'esor bahem.” Why does he forbid it? Consider digging. If I dig a hole, I don’t need the hole; I need the sand. Is that a davar she'eino mitkaven? No, you intend to dig; it just isn’t legufah. I know it’s different; I’m saying it’s hard to articulate. If I’m walking in my backyard and making a hole as I walk, that’s a davar she'eino mitkaven. If I go to dig a hole, I’m digging the hole; that’s melachah she'einah tzerichah legufah.
He writes: “Ve'im ken, betziruf hate'amim hanal, dahavei leh mekalkel bedavar she'eino mitkaven.” “Ve'im ken, betziruf hate'amim hanal, dahavei leh mekalkel bedavar she'eino mitkaven,” and if you don’t intend to make blood come out, it is mekalkel. It is a rabbinic pesik reisheh delo nicha leh, so one can be lenient. He is using it as a tziruf, not giving it as the sole reason. This is a geder (framework) for understanding the issue. Even if it were a pesik reisheh and an unintended act, it is mekalkel, which is rabbinic. He says: “She'af ha'osrim psik reisha miderabbanan, yodu lemaran shepasak she'im hayah sakin takua me'erev Shabbat bachavit (barrel),” as we learned, if a knife was stuck in the barrel from before Shabbat, “mutar lehotzi'o ulehachniso.” You may take it out and put it in, though you don’t intend to make the hole bigger. Even though taking it out and putting it back will inevitably widen the hole, and it’s impossible that the hole won’t widen, since it is destructive and also kel'achar yad (in an unusual manner), and you don’t need the hole, it is melachah she'einah tzerichah legufah, which is less stringent than other rabbinic prohibitions involving a pesik reisheh. “Vechol hanei ta'amei itnhu benidon didan.” All these reasons are present in our case.
He is piling on the reasons. He isn’t relying on a rabbinic pesik reisheh and melachah she'einah tzerichah legufah alone. He is also telling you that it is mekalkel, and that there is distress. He may also be talking about breaking the bristles. He isn’t talking about the bleeding in that case. Another problem is that you might pull the brush bristles off. In any event, does this mean that whenever something is melachah she'einah tzerichah legufah, pesik reisheh doesn’t help? He writes: “Veda ki zeh atah nizdamen leyadi kovetz echad shehe'etik misham Rav Moshe Feinstein shehitir lirchotz hashinayim beShabbat, veshifshufan bemavreshet.” Rav Moshe Feinstein permitted washing one’s teeth on Shabbat and brushing them, and he wasn’t concerned about the bristles coming off or about uvdin dechol (weekday-like activity). But he permitted it with water, not toothpaste. “I’ll talk about the toothpaste another time,” he says.
Now look quickly at number 27, Rabotai, and then we’ll break. “Vechatav haBen Ish Chai she'eino nechshav lemelachah she'einah tzrichah legufah vechayav.” We saw that the Mishnah Berurah says that if you do something out of revenge, you are chayav, because it isn’t considered melachah she'einah tzerichah legufah: you’re doing it to forget the anger. In Halichot Olam, volume four, he notes that the Rambam follows his own view that melachah she'einah tzerichah legufah is chayav for it. “Aval ledidan dekayma lan demelachah she'einah tzerichah legufah patur, af al pi shederech nekamah, patur aval asur.” But according to our ruling that melachah she'einah tzerichah legufah is patur, even if it is done for revenge, it is patur aval asur.
Why does the Ben Ish Chai say you are chayav in that case? We don’t hold like the Rambam; it should be patur. Why? Because you don’t need the rip. Bring it back to the same question: what is melachah she'einah tzerichah legufah? The Rambam holds you are chayav, but we don’t all hold like the Rambam; we hold like—Here it’s metaken, no? Because he forgets his anger. Why is it metaken? You don’t need the rip. Because he is forgetting his anger. That’s the result. The rip itself doesn’t make it a constructive act. I don’t need the rip. You’re right that the rip caused a positive reaction, but I could say I’d rather not rip it. Isn’t it wounding with a metaken, which we discussed? No, that wasn’t about mekalkel. When you rip something to get your anger out, is it melachah she'einah tzerichah legufah or tzrichah legufah? The Rambam says that even if it’s einah tzrichah legufah, you are chayav. But Chacham Ovadiah is saying that according to our view, which is like Rabbi Shimon, you won’t be chayav; you will be patur. It is still asur, because you don’t need the blood.
In the case where you hit the animal and the blood comes out, doing it for revenge, like “la'asot nekamah bagoyim (non-Jew),” do you need the blood? The Rambam says, “So what?” If it is metaken—No, forget metaken for a moment; we’re discussing the melachah she'einah tzerichah legufah element. Rabbi Shimon says it is patur, but only when it isn’t metaken. Here, if it is metaken—He’s saying it isn’t a tikun; it’s kilkul. I don’t need the blood. That was the dispute between the Rambam and the Ra'avad that we saw.
“Makeh et bno beShabbat leyasro, mechamat haka'as asah bo chaburah vehotzi mimenu dam, chayav.” Hitting his son on Shabbat to discipline him, out of anger, making a wound and bringing blood out, is chayav. “She'ein zeh derech tochachah leben katan, ela beshiga'on yinhag.” That isn’t a way to discipline a young child; it is acting irrationally. “Hamakeh et chaveiro derech sechok,” or pinching someone as a joke, “o she'ochez bivsaro bechozek ad shenit'adem,” or holding his flesh tightly until it bruises, even if he does it as a joke, that is melachah she'einah tzerichah legufah, but in any case it is forbidden by rabbinic law. You pinched someone and caused blood to bruise. You didn’t mean it. So what? It’s still forbidden rabbinically. You have to be careful about a wise guy pinching someone.
Kids pinch each other; a moose is not going to do that. Leave the kids alone. They get your goat; they pinch each other. Be careful. What would you say? It is acting irrationally to do that to a little kid, and it could be chayav? Why? It should be patur. “Vekorban”—it is forbidden, yes, for sure. He hasn’t arrived at that prohibition at the beginning. What about massage? Sometimes we do massage on Shabbat?
“Yagdil Torah veyadir.” “Yitgadal veyitkadash shemeh raba.” Amen. “Be'alma di vera chir'uteh veyamlich malchuteh veyatzmach purkaneh vikarev meshicheh” (In the world He created as He willed; may He establish His kingdom and bring redemption and the Messiah near). Amen. “Bechayeichon uvyomeichon uvchayei dechol beit Yisrael ba'agala uvizman kariv ve'imru amen.” Amen. “Yeheh shemeh raba mevarach le'alam ule'almei 'almaya” (May His great name be blessed forever and ever). “Yeheh shemeh raba mevarach le'alam ule'almei 'almaya. Yitbarach veyishtabach veyitpa'ar veyitromam veyitnasei veyithadar veyit'aleh veyithalal shemeh dekudsha berich hu (May the name of the Holy One be blessed, praised, glorified, exalted, raised, honored, elevated, and lauded). Berich hu (Blessed is He). Le'ela min kol birchata veshirata tushbechata venechemata da'amiran be'alma ve'imru amen (Above all blessings, songs, praises, and consolations spoken in the world; and say Amen).” Amen.
Why do you think... The kids, they punch each other, they jump, doing that... I’ve seen mine; they’re all red. Cover it, it doesn’t go to the surface. They’re thirteen, fourteen; they’re not—because it’s not—What about here, too? Somebody is also—What does that mean? No, but red, red. The main reason they say is that when the skin turns a little red and it goes away in ten minutes, that’s nothing. Even if no blood comes out, it’s considered a nefesh, a life force, coming out; it’s stuck there. I can move. If that’s the case, you can’t scratch yourself because it turns red in ten minutes. You can embarrass someone; you’re going to cause...