catches

And every man who does any work thereon, or goes a journey, or tills (his) farm, whether in his house or any other place, and whoever lights a fire, or rides on any beast, or travels by ship on the sea, and whoever strikes or kills anything, or slaughters a beast or a bird, or whoever catches an animal or a bird or a fish, or whoever fasts or makes war on the Sabbaths:

For let us learn what the sacred word says in the book of Wisdom: My son, keep my words, and hide my commandments with you. Say unto Wisdom, You are my sister; and make understanding familiar with you: that she may keep you from the strange and wicked woman, in case such a one accost you with sweet words. For from the window of her house she looks into the street, to see if she can espy some young man among the foolish children, without understanding, walking in the market-place, in the meeting of the street near her house, and talking in the dusk of the evening, or in the silence and darkness of the night. A woman meets him in the appearance of an harlot, who steals away the hearts of young persons. She rambles about, and is dissolute; her feet abide not in her house: sometimes she is without, sometimes in the streets, and lies in wait at every corner. Then she catches him, and kisses him, and with an impudent face says unto him, I have peace-offerings with me; this day do I pay my vows: therefore came I forth to meet you; earnestly I have desired your face, and I have found you. I have decked my bed with coverings; with tapestry from Egypt have I adorned it. I have perfumed my bed with saffron, and my house with cinnamon. Come, let us take our fill of love until the morning; come, let us solace ourselves with love, etc. To which he adds: With much discourse she seduced him, with snares from her lips she forced him. He goes after her like a silly bird. And again: Do not hearken to a wicked woman; for though the lips of an harlot are like drops from an honey-comb, which for a while is smooth in your throat, yet afterwards you will find her more bitter than gall, and sharper than any two-edged sword. And again: But get away quickly, and tarry not; fix not your eyes upon her: for she has thrown down many wounded; yea, innumerable multitudes have been slain by her. If not, says he, yet you will repent at the last, when your flesh and your body are consumed, and will say, How have I hated instruction, and my heart has avoided the reproofs of the righteous! I have not hearkened to the voice of my instructor, nor inclined mine ear to my teacher. I have almost been in all evil. But we will make no more quotations; and if we have omitted any, be so prudent as to select the most valuable out of the Holy Scriptures, and confirm yourselves with them, rejecting all things that are evil, that so you may be found holy with God in eternal life.

If one throws [something] and remembers [that it is Shabbat] after it leaves his hand, and another catches it, or a dog catches it or it is burnt, he is not liable. If one throws [something] in order to inflict a wound whether to a person or a beast, and he remembers [that it is Shabbat] before the wound is inflicted he is not liable. This is the general principle: all who are liable to sin-offerings are liable only if the beginning and the end [of the forbidden action] are unwitting. If their beginning is unwitting while their end is intentional, if their beginning is intentional while their end is unwitting, they are not liable, unless their beginning and end are intentional.

If one throws [something] and remembers [that it is Shabbat] after it leaves his hand, and another catches it, or a dog catches it or it is burnt, he is not liable. If one throws [something] in order to inflict a wound whether to a person or a beast, and he remembers [that it is Shabbat] before the wound is inflicted he is not liable. This is the general principle: all who are liable to sin-offerings are liable only if the beginning and the end [of the forbidden action] are unwitting. If their beginning is unwitting while their end is intentional, if their beginning is intentional while their end is unwitting, they are not liable, unless their beginning and end are intentional.

If man sends a get to his wife and then catches up with the messenger, or sends a messenger after the original messenger, and says to him, “The get which I gave you is annulled”, then it is annulled. If the husband arrives at his wife before [the messenger] or sends a messenger to her and says, “The get which I sent to you is annulled”, then it is annulled. Once the get has reached her hand, he cannot annul it.

MISHNAH: There are 39 categories of work. He who ploughs, who sows, who harvests, who binds into sheaves, who threshes, and who winnows, who selects, who grinds, and who sifts, who makes dough, and who bakes. He who shears wool, who bleaches it, who cards it, who dyes it, who spins it, who prepares the loom, who ties two threads as warp, who weaves two rows, who hits two threads, who ties, and who unties. Also who sews two stitches, who tears in order to sew two stitches. He who catches a deer, who slaughters it, who skins it, who salts it, who rubs it clean, who tans it, who cuts it, who writes two letters, and who erases in order to write two letters. He who builds, and who tears down, who extinguishes fire, and who lights fire, and who hits with a hammer, and who transports from one domain to another; these are the 39 categories of work.

“And who harvests.” Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: “One who cuts grain, harvests grapes, harvests olives, cuts tree branches, tears out, plucks fruits, are all because of harvesting.” One who cuts sponge, papyrus, or corals is liable for harvesting and planting. One who cuts coriander, leeks, celery, rocket, endives, sesame, mint, is liable for harvesting and sowing. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, one who puts a flowerpot with a hole on a flowerpot with a hole is liable for harvesting and sowing. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, one who cuts down the stem of a sycamore is liable three for it. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, they do not disagree. One who cuts it is liable for harvesting and for sowing. One who planes it is liable for hitting with a hammer. The rabbis of Caesarea say, one who catches a fish or anything by which he separates it from the environment it needs to live is liable because of harvesting.

3. One who catches a purple snail and crushes it. There are Tannaïm who state that he is liable twice. There are Tannaïm who state that he is liable only once. He who says twice, one because of catching and one because of depriving of life. But he who says once, this is because of depriving of life. Does he not have catching? It comes like what Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Yose, Rebbi Abbahu, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish in the name of Rebbi Meïr said: The Holy One, praise to Him, created for Moses in the desert a kind of pure animal. After the work of the Tabernacle had been finished it was hidden. Rebbi Abun said, its name was qereš. Rebbi Hoshaia stated, a unicorn. It is preferable to the Eternal to a cattle ox which sprouts a horn and has split hooves. It is written, it sprouts a horn.

Rebbi Joḥanan said, there is here no “not liable” but “permitted.” There, we have stated: “He who opens a boil on the Sabbath, if to make an opening he is liable, if to remove fluid he is not liable.” Rebbi Joḥanan said, there is here no “not liable” but “permitted.” There, we have stated: “One who catches a snake on the Sabbath, if he is active that it should not bite him he is not liable, if for medicine he is liable.” Rebbi Joḥanan said, there is here no “not liable” but “permitted.” There, we have stated: “About rural dishes that they are pure in a tent with a corpse but impure if carried by a sufferer from gonorrhea.” Rebbi Zeˋira said, this is correct. If for a need, that is what we have stated, “if for medicine he is liable.” This implies that there is here no “not liable” but “permitted.”

MISHNAH: Rebbi Jehudah says, one who catches a bird for a cage or a deer for a house is liable, but the Sages say, a bird for a cage and a deer for a garden, or a courtyard, or a vivarium. Rebbi Simeon ben Gamliel says, not all vivaria are equal. The principle: In every case where it still needs catching, he is not liable, if it does not need catching he is liable.

HALAKHAH: 5. Rebbi Ḥinena said, our Mishnah dos not follow Rebbi Jehudah, as we have stated: “ one who catches a bird for a cage or a deer for a house is liable;” therefore for a garden or a vivarium he is not liable. The argument of Rebbi Jehudah is inverted since we have stated there: “one does not catch fish from vivaria, one does not feed them,” therefore for a garden or a vivarium he is not liable? The argument of the rabbis is inverted, as we have stated: “but the Sages say, a bird for a cage and a deer for a garden, or a courtyard, or a vivarium,” and we have stated there, “but one catches wild animals and fowl from vivaria and feeds them,” therefore not for a garden or a vivarium? One for a covered courtyard, the other for a courtyard which is not covered. But did we not state “a garden”? Can you say a covered garden? But here a large one, there a small one. Rebbi Ulla said, they asked before Rebbi Aḥa, how should one state? In any case where catching is still missing one is liable, but if catching is not missing one is not liable? He answered them, do we not deal with the case that he corrals them into it? But “in any case where catching is still missing it is forbidden, but if catching is not missing it is permitted”. Rebbi Samuel, Rebbi Berekhiah’s brother, said: any which needs nets needs catching, what does not need nets does not need catching.

HALAKHAH: 5. Rebbi Ḥinena said, our Mishnah dos not follow Rebbi Jehudah, as we have stated: “ one who catches a bird for a cage or a deer for a house is liable;” therefore for a garden or a vivarium he is not liable. The argument of Rebbi Jehudah is inverted since we have stated there: “one does not catch fish from vivaria, one does not feed them,” therefore for a garden or a vivarium he is not liable? The argument of the rabbis is inverted, as we have stated: “but the Sages say, a bird for a cage and a deer for a garden, or a courtyard, or a vivarium,” and we have stated there, “but one catches wild animals and fowl from vivaria and feeds them,” therefore not for a garden or a vivarium? One for a covered courtyard, the other for a courtyard which is not covered. But did we not state “a garden”? Can you say a covered garden? But here a large one, there a small one. Rebbi Ulla said, they asked before Rebbi Aḥa, how should one state? In any case where catching is still missing one is liable, but if catching is not missing one is not liable? He answered them, do we not deal with the case that he corrals them into it? But “in any case where catching is still missing it is forbidden, but if catching is not missing it is permitted”. Rebbi Samuel, Rebbi Berekhiah’s brother, said: any which needs nets needs catching, what does not need nets does not need catching.

MISHNAH: The eight kinds of vermin mentioned in the Torah: one who catches or injures them is liable. Other abominations and vermin: one who injures them is not liable; if he catches them for some need he is liable, otherwise he is not liable. Wild animals and fowl in his possession: if he catches them he is not liable but if he injures them he is liable.

MISHNAH: The eight kinds of vermin mentioned in the Torah: one who catches or injures them is liable. Other abominations and vermin: one who injures them is not liable; if he catches them for some need he is liable, otherwise he is not liable. Wild animals and fowl in his possession: if he catches them he is not liable but if he injures them he is liable.

MISHNAH: The eight kinds of vermin mentioned in the Torah: one who catches or injures them is liable. Other abominations and vermin: one who injures them is not liable; if he catches them for some need he is liable, otherwise he is not liable. Wild animals and fowl in his possession: if he catches them he is not liable but if he injures them he is liable.

HALAKHAH: “The eight kinds of vermin,” etc. Rebbi Zeriqan in the name of Rebbi Immi: Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish disagreed. One said, this is everybody’s opinion; the other said, it is in dispute. We do not know who said what. Rebbi Zeˋira said, let us explain the rabbis’ words from their own words, since we have stated there: “these are the ones whose skins are like their flesh, human skin and domesticated pigskin. Rebbi Yose says, also wild pigskin.” Rebbi Joḥanan said, they taught this only regarding prohibition and impurity. But with regard to flogging it is hide and one may not flog for it because of carcass meat. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, Rebbi taught a complete Mishnah, whether for prohibition, or for flogging, or for impurity. A baraita supports one, and a baraita supports the other. A baraita supports Rebbi Joḥanan: “The eight kinds of vermin have hides. Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri said, therefore I am saying that the eight kinds of vermin have hides.” A baraita supports Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish. He who injures vermin, for those who have hides he is liable, for those who have no hides he is not liable. Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri said, therefore I am saying that all kinds of vermin have hides. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rav: It is hide and one may not flog for it because of carcass meat. This follows what Rebbi Joḥanan said, “he who caught crickets, flies, ḥagazin, mosquitoes is liable, but Rebbi Jehudah declares not liable, for so did Rebbi Jehudah say, one is liable only for something which usually is hunted. One who catches locusts in dew is not liable, in dry time is liable. Eleazar ben Aḥbai says, even in heat one is not liable if it forms clusters. One who catches a lame, blind, sick, young deer is not liable, for a sleeping one he is liable,” for it closes one and opens one.

HALAKHAH: “The eight kinds of vermin,” etc. Rebbi Zeriqan in the name of Rebbi Immi: Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish disagreed. One said, this is everybody’s opinion; the other said, it is in dispute. We do not know who said what. Rebbi Zeˋira said, let us explain the rabbis’ words from their own words, since we have stated there: “these are the ones whose skins are like their flesh, human skin and domesticated pigskin. Rebbi Yose says, also wild pigskin.” Rebbi Joḥanan said, they taught this only regarding prohibition and impurity. But with regard to flogging it is hide and one may not flog for it because of carcass meat. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, Rebbi taught a complete Mishnah, whether for prohibition, or for flogging, or for impurity. A baraita supports one, and a baraita supports the other. A baraita supports Rebbi Joḥanan: “The eight kinds of vermin have hides. Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri said, therefore I am saying that the eight kinds of vermin have hides.” A baraita supports Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish. He who injures vermin, for those who have hides he is liable, for those who have no hides he is not liable. Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri said, therefore I am saying that all kinds of vermin have hides. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rav: It is hide and one may not flog for it because of carcass meat. This follows what Rebbi Joḥanan said, “he who caught crickets, flies, ḥagazin, mosquitoes is liable, but Rebbi Jehudah declares not liable, for so did Rebbi Jehudah say, one is liable only for something which usually is hunted. One who catches locusts in dew is not liable, in dry time is liable. Eleazar ben Aḥbai says, even in heat one is not liable if it forms clusters. One who catches a lame, blind, sick, young deer is not liable, for a sleeping one he is liable,” for it closes one and opens one.

“Wild animals and fowl in his possession: if he catches them he is not liable but if he injures them he is liable.” They said this only if it is under the control of a human. Therefore if it is not under the control of a human he is liable. Rebbi Yose said, this means that one who on the Sabbath catches an escaped bull is liable. The rabbis of Caesarea in the name of Rav Avidan: One is permitted to write a mezuzah on bird’s skin.

“Wild animals and fowl in his possession: if he catches them he is not liable but if he injures them he is liable.” They said this only if it is under the control of a human. Therefore if it is not under the control of a human he is liable. Rebbi Yose said, this means that one who on the Sabbath catches an escaped bull is liable. The rabbis of Caesarea in the name of Rav Avidan: One is permitted to write a mezuzah on bird’s skin.

HALAKHAH: It was stated: He enters South of the candelabrum, the words of Rebbi Meïr; Rebbi Yose says, he enters North of the Table. Some Tannaim state, he was entering between the golden altar and the candelabrum. He walks between them until he reaches the North. He pushes with his elbows so that the gobelins should not be burned. When he arrives at the North he turns his face to the South. He retraces his steps lest he be seen as striding between the beams. How does he do it? Rebbi Ḥanina said, he puts the bowl on the ground, throws it in the air and catches it with the fire-pan. Samuel said, he pushes it with his hands. Rebbi Joḥanan said, he empties the cup and it rises straight up, then it expands and descends.

MISHNAH: One does not catch fish from vivaria and one does not feed them. But one catches wild animals and fowl from vivaria and feeds them. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, not all vivaria are equal. This is the principle: any which still requires catching is forbidden, but any which does not require catching is permitted.

HALAKHAH: “One does not catch fish,” etc. Rebbi Ḥinena said, our Mishnah does not follow Rebbi Jehudah, as we have stated there: “ one who catches a bird for a cage or a deer for a house is liable;” therefore for a garden or a vivarium he is not liable. The argument of Rebbi Jehudah is inverted since we have stated: “one does not catch fish from vivaria and one does not feed them,” therefore for a garden or a vivarium he is not liable? The argument of the rabbis is inverted, as we have stated there: “but the Sages say, a bird for a cage and a deer for a garden, or a courtyard, or a vivarium,” and we have stated, “but one catches wild animals and fowl from vivaria and feeds them,” therefore not for a garden or a vivarium? One for a covered courtyard, the other for a courtyard which is not covered. But did we not state “a garden”? Can you say a covered garden? But here a large one, there a small one. Rebbi Ulla said, they asked before Rebbi Aḥa, how should one state? In any case where catching is still missing one is liable, but if catching is not missing one is not liable? He answered them, do we not deal with the case that he corrals them into it? But “in any case where catching is still missing it is forbidden, but if catching is not missing it is permitted”. Rebbi Samuel, Rebbi Berekhiah’s brother, said: any which needs nets needs catching, what does not need nets does not need catching.

HALAKHAH: “One does not catch fish,” etc. Rebbi Ḥinena said, our Mishnah does not follow Rebbi Jehudah, as we have stated there: “ one who catches a bird for a cage or a deer for a house is liable;” therefore for a garden or a vivarium he is not liable. The argument of Rebbi Jehudah is inverted since we have stated: “one does not catch fish from vivaria and one does not feed them,” therefore for a garden or a vivarium he is not liable? The argument of the rabbis is inverted, as we have stated there: “but the Sages say, a bird for a cage and a deer for a garden, or a courtyard, or a vivarium,” and we have stated, “but one catches wild animals and fowl from vivaria and feeds them,” therefore not for a garden or a vivarium? One for a covered courtyard, the other for a courtyard which is not covered. But did we not state “a garden”? Can you say a covered garden? But here a large one, there a small one. Rebbi Ulla said, they asked before Rebbi Aḥa, how should one state? In any case where catching is still missing one is liable, but if catching is not missing one is not liable? He answered them, do we not deal with the case that he corrals them into it? But “in any case where catching is still missing it is forbidden, but if catching is not missing it is permitted”. Rebbi Samuel, Rebbi Berekhiah’s brother, said: any which needs nets needs catching, what does not need nets does not need catching.

“That I will not eat from yours, that I will not taste from yours.” Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Hoshaiah. One catches him because of a handle for qorbān. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked, if he said, I shall not eat from you, does one catch him because of a handle of an oath? Rebbi Yose said, people usually say “handle of an axe”, do they ever say “axe of a handle”?

“I am” is a handle for nezirut, “I am obligated” is a handle for qorban. Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Hoshaiah: one catches him because of a handle for qorbān. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked, if he said, I shall not eat from you, does one catch him because of a handle of an oath? Rebbi Yose said, people usually say “an oath that I shall not eat from yours;” do they ever say “that I shall not eat from yours, an oath”? Rebbi Mattaniah said, people usually say “handle of an axe”; do they ever say “axe of a handle”?