Talmud - Shabbat 108a שבת ק״ח א׳

a mushroom from the handle of a pitcher on Shabbat is liable for uprooting an object from its place of growth. Rav Oshaya raised an objection from that which we learned: One who detaches a plant on Shabbat from a perforated flowerpot is liable, and one who detaches a plant from an imperforate pot is exempt. A plant that grows in an imperforate pot is not considered connected to the ground. One who detaches it is not uprooting it from its place of growth. The Gemara answers: There, in the case of an imperforate pot, that is not the way a plant grows. Plants are generally planted in the ground; a plant in an imperforate pot is disconnected from the ground. Whereas here, in the case of a mushroom growing from the handle of a pitcher, that is the way it grows. The plant is considered connected to the ground.

We learned in the mishna: One who wounds an animal or a bird on Shabbat is liable. Rav Huna said: One may write phylacteries on the skin of a kosher bird. Rav Yosef said: What is he teaching us with this statement? If he is teaching us that a bird has skin, we already learned that: One who wounds an animal or a bird is liable. Since there is liability only if a wound forms beneath the skin, apparently a bird has skin. Abaye said to him: He is teaching us many things, for if I had only learned from the mishna, I would have said the following: Since the skin of a bird has many holes from which the feathers grow, one should not be allowed to write sacred matters on it. Therefore, he teaches us as they say in the West, i.e., in Eretz Yisrael: Any hole over which ink passes and does not penetrate it, is not considered a hole that invalidates the writing.

Rabbi Zeira raised an objection to the conclusion that the skin of a bird is considered skin. Didn’t we learn in a baraita that the verse: “And he shall rend it by its wings without creating a division, and the priest shall burn it upon the altar on the wood that is on the fire” (Leviticus 1:17), teaches that the priest must prepare even the skin to make it acceptable for the altar? That is not the case when animals are offered, as their skin is flayed before they are sacrificed. And if it should enter your mind that the skin of a bird is skin, how does the verse include it among that which the priest prepares for the altar? Abaye said: This is not difficult. Indeed, it is skin, and nevertheless, the Torah includes it as a biblical decree, specifying that the skin of a bird is sacrificed.

Some say that Rabbi Zeira said: We, too, have also learned support for this halakha: The verse: “By its wings,” comes to include the skin. Granted, if you say that the skin of a bird is skin, that is the reason that the verse needs to explicitly include it. The verse is teaching us that even though the bird’s skin is skin, it must still be sacrificed. However, if you say that the skin of a bird is not skin, why is a verse necessary to include it? Clearly, it is sacrificed. Abaye said to him: That is not proof. Actually, I can say to you that it is not skin and, nevertheless, it must be included in the verse. Had the skin of the bird not been specifically included, it might have entered your mind to say that since there are many holes in it, it is repulsive and unfit for the altar. Therefore, the verse teaches us that it is sacrificed. There is no proof that the skin of a bird is considered skin.

Mar, son of Ravina, raised a dilemma before Rav Naḥman bar Yitzhak: What is the halakha with regard to writing phylacteries on the skin of a kosher fish? Rav Naḥman bar Yitzhak said to him: If Elijah comes and says. The Gemara asks: What does the phrase: If Elijah comes and says, mean? What requires clarification? If you say that whether a fish has skin or whether it does not have skin requires clarification, we see that it has skin. And furthermore, we learned in a mishna: Fish bones and skin protect the objects covered with them from becoming impure under a tent with a corpse. Since fish bones and skin do not contract impurity, they constitute a barrier to impurity. Apparently, fish have skin. Rather, if Elijah comes and says whether its foul smell has ceased from it or whether its foul smell has not ceased from it.

It was reported: Shmuel and Karna were sitting on the bank of the Malka River. They saw that the water was rising and was murky. Shmuel said to Karna: A great man is coming from the West, Eretz Yisrael, and his intestines are aching, and the water is rising to greet him. Go sniff out his container, i.e., see if he is a Torah scholar. Karna went and found Rav, who was the Sage that came from Eretz Yisrael, and he asked him several questions to test him. He said to him: From where is it derived that one may write phylacteries only on the hide of a kosher animal? Rav said to him that this halakha is as it is written: “And it shall be a sign for you on your arm, and a reminder between your eyes, so that God’s Torah will be in your mouth” (Exodus 13:9). Only hide from those animals that are permitted to be placed in your mouth, i.e., may be eaten, may be used for phylacteries. Karna then asked him: From where is it derived that prohibited blood is red? Karna asked Rav this to determine which shades of menstrual blood are impure. Rav said to him that it is as it is stated: “And the Moabites saw the water from afar, red like blood” (II Kings 3:22).

Karna also asked: From where is derived that circumcision is performed in that place? Rav answered him: It is stated here, with regard to circumcision: “And on the eighth day he shall circumcise the flesh of his foreskin [orlato]” (Leviticus 12:3), and it is stated there, with regard to recently planted trees: “And when you come to the land and plant all types of fruit trees, and you shall count the fruit thereof as forbidden [orlato]; three years shall it be as forbidden unto you, it shall not be eaten.” (Leviticus 19:23). Just as there the Torah is referring to a tree, which is an item that bears fruit, here, too, in the case of circumcision, orla is referring to an item that bears fruit. He asked him: Say that circumcision should be performed on one’s heart, as it is written: “And you shall circumcise the foreskin of [orlat] your heart” (Deuteronomy 10:16)? Say that circumcision should be performed on one’s ear, as it is written: “Behold, their ear is dull [areila] and they cannot listen” (Jeremiah 6:10)? Rav said to him: One derives the meaning of the complete form orlato from another instance of the complete form orlato; and one does not derive the complete form orlato from the incomplete form orlat, which modifies another word, as is also the case with the word areila.

Since Rav understood that Karna came to test him, he said to him: What is your name? He told him: Karna. He said to him: May it be the will of God that a horn [karna] will emerge in his eyes.

Ultimately, Shmuel brought him into his house. He fed him barley bread and small fried fish, and gave him beer to drink, and he did not show him the lavatory so he would suffer from diarrhea. Shmuel was a doctor and he wanted to relieve Rav’s intestinal suffering by feeding him food that would relieve him. Since Rav was unaware of Shmuel’s intention, he became angry at him. Rav cursed Shmuel and said: Whoever causes me suffering, let his children not survive. Although Rav eventually discovered Shmuel’s good intentions, his curse was fulfilled, and so it was that Shmuel’s children did not survive long.

The Gemara comments: The issue mentioned above is in fact a dispute between tanna’im. It was asked in a baraita: From where is it derived that circumcision is performed in that place? It is stated here, in the case of circumcision, orlato. And it is stated there, with regard to trees, orlato. Just as there the Torah is referring to a tree, which is an item that bears fruit, here too, orla is referring to an item that bears fruit; this is the statement of Rabbi Yoshiya. Rabbi Natan says: This verbal analogy is not necessary, as it says: “And an uncircumcised man who does not circumcise the flesh of his foreskin [orlato], his soul will be cut off from his nation, he has broken My covenant” (Genesis 17:14). From the fact that it says: An uncircumcised man, it is derived that circumcision is in the place that distinguishes between a male and a female.

The Gemara cites similar proofs. The Sages taught: One may write phylacteries on the hide of a kosher domesticated animal, and on the hide of a kosher non-domesticated animal, and on the hides of their unslaughtered carcasses [neveilot], and on the hides of animals with a condition that will cause them to die within twelve months [tereifot]. And one may wrap the parchment with the hair of these animals and sew them with their sinews; and it is a halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai that the parchment of phylacteries may be wrapped with the hair of these animals and sewn with their sinews. But one may not write on the hide of a non-kosher animal, or on the hide of a non-kosher undomesticated animal, and it goes without saying that one may not write on their skins when they are neveilot or tereifot. And one may not wrap the parchment with the hair of non-kosher animals, nor may one sew them with their sinews.

And this question was asked by a Boethusian to Rabbi Yehoshua HaGarsi: From where is it derived that one may not write phylacteries on the hide of a non-kosher animal? He said to him, it is as it is written: “So that God’s Torah will be in your mouth.” The Rabbis derived that one may write the passages only on an item that is permitted to be placed in one’s mouth, i.e., eaten. He said to him: If that is so, on the skin of neveilot and tereifot coming from kosher animals, one should not write phylacteries, as they may not be eaten. He said to him: I will tell you a parable. To what is this similar? To two people who were sentenced to death by the king. One was killed by the king himself, and one was killed by an executioner [ispaklitor]. Which one is more praiseworthy? You must say: The one that the king himself killed. Therefore, an animal that died at the hands of Heaven and not by a human action is superior. He said to him: If so, then the neveilot and tereifot should be eaten, as they were killed by the king. He said to him: The Torah said: “Do not eat any neveila” (Deuteronomy 14:20) and you say they should be eaten? A Torah decree determines that they may not be eaten, but that does not mean they are inferior. The Boethusian said to him: Well put [kalos].

MISHNA: One may not make brine [hilmei] on Shabbat,

Traduction : The William Davidson digital edition of the Koren Noé Talmud, with commentary by Rabbi Adin Even-Israel Steinsaltz.

Shabbat 108a examines liability for uprooting mushrooms growing on vessels and debates whether bird skin qualifies for writing kosher phylacteries.