💾 Archived View for scholasticdiversity.us.to › scriptures › jewish › t › Mishneh%20Torah%2C%20Sabba… captured on 2024-05-10 at 12:18:01. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
11 ‎[1] A person who slaughters is liable. This does not apply only to [ritual] slaughter. Anyone who takes the life of a living beast, an animal, fowl, fish, or crawling animal - whether by slaughtering, stabbing, or beating - is liable.
A person who strangles a living creature performs a derivative of slaughtering. Therefore, if one removed a fish from the glass of water [in which it was being kept] until it died, one is liable for strangling it. [Indeed, one is liable even if one returns it to the water before] the fish actually dies. As long as [a portion of its body as wide as] a *sela* between its fins becomes dry, one is liable, for it will not be able to live afterwards.
A person who inserts his hand into an animal's womb and removes a fetus [from] the womb is liable. ‎[2] A person who kills insects and worms that are conceived through male-female relations or fleas that come into being from the dust is liable as if he killed an animal or a beast. In contrast, a person is not liable for killing insects and worms that come into being from dung, rotten fruit, or the like - e.g., the worms found in meat or those found in legumes. ‎[3] A person who checks his clothes for lice on the Sabbath may rub off the lice and discard them. It is is permitted to kill lice on the Sabbath, for they come into being from sweat. ‎[4] It is permitted to kill beasts or insects whose bites are surely deadly, as soon as one sees them - for example, flies in Egypt, hornets in Nineveh, scorpions in Adiabena, snakes in *Eretz Yisrael*, and rabid dogs in all places.
[The following rules apply with regard to] other dangerous animals: If they are chasing a person, one may kill them.If they are staying in their place or fleeing from the person, it is forbidden to kill them. If one steps on them accidentally as one is walking and kills them, this is permitted. ‎[5] A person who skins [a portion of an animal's] hide large enough to make an amulet is liable. Similarly, one who processes [a portion of an animal's] hide large enough to make an amulet is liable.
Just as one who processes [a hide is liable], so too, is one who salts [a hide], for salting is one of the methods of processing. [Prohibitions associated with the forbidden labor of] processing do not apply with regard to foodstuffs.
Similarly, one who smooths [a portion of an animal's] hide large enough to make an amulet is liable. What is meant by smoothing? Removing the hair or the wool from the hide after [the animal's] death so that the surface of the hide will be smooth. ‎[6] A person who separates *duchsustos* from *k'laf*is liable for [performing] a derivative [of the forbidden labor] of skinning. A person who separates [a portion] from a hide large enough to make an amulet is liable.
A person who treads upon a hide with his feet until it becomes hard, or one who softens it with his hands, extending it, and leveling it as the leather workers do is liable for [performing] a derivative [of the forbidden labor] of processing.
A person who pulls a feather from the wing of a fowl is liable for [performing] a derivative [of the forbidden labor] of smoothing. Similarly, a person who smears a poultice of even the smallest size, beeswax, tar, or other entities that are smeared until a smooth surface is produced is liable for [performing a derivative of the forbidden labor of] smoothing.
A person who rubs a hide that is suspended between pillars is liable for smoothing. ‎[7] A person who cuts [a portion] from a hide large enough to make an amulet is liable, provided he cuts with a specific length and width in mind. Cutting in this manner is considered as labor [forbidden on the Sabbath]. If, however, one cuts with a destructive intent, or without a precise measure, doing so either without thought entirely or for pleasure, he is not liable.
A person who trims [the down from] a wing [of a fowl] is liable [for performing] a derivative [of the forbidden labor] of cutting. Similarly, one who planes a beam of cedar wood is liable for cutting. Similarly, anyone who cuts a piece of wood or a piece of metal is liable for cutting.
A person who takes a small piece of wood and trims it to use as a toothpick or to pry open a door is liable. ‎[8] Any article that is fit to be used as animal fodder - e.g., straw, soft grasses, palm branches, and the like, may be trimmed on the Sabbath, because the the concept of preparing a utensil does not apply in this context.
It is permitted to break fragrant branches [by hand] for the sake of their scent although they are hard and dry. One may strip [their bark] as one desires, regardless of whether one strips [the bark] of a small branch or a large branch. ‎[9] A person who writes two letters is liable. A person who erases writing so that he can write two letters is liable.
A person who writes one large letter the size of two [ordinary] letters is not liable. In contrast, a person who erases one large letter in a place where two letters can be written is liable.
A person who wrote one letter that concluded a scroll is liable. A person who writes for the sake of ruining the parchment is liable, for one is liable for the writing itself and the surface on which [the letters] are written is not significant. If one rubs out writing with the intent of ruining [the writing surface], one is not liable.
Should one rub out ink that fell on a scroll or rub out wax that fell on a writing tablet, one is liable if [the rubbed out] portion is large enough for two letters to be written upon it. ‎[10] A person who writes the same letter twice and thus produces a word [that has meaning] - e.g., דד תת גג רר שש סס חח - is liable.
One is liable for writing in any language and with any characters, or even for making two marks. ‎[11] Left: Two zeinim in the Assyrian script. Right: A chet in the Assyrian script.
A person is not liable for writing in the following circumstances:
He writes one letter next to writing that existed previously;
he writes on top of writing that existed previously;
he intended to write a *chet* and instead wrote two *zeinim* or makes a similar error with regard to other letters;
he writes one letter on the floor [of a house] and one letter on [one of] the beams [of the ceiling], for they are not read as a single unit;
he writes two letters on two pages of a writing tablet that are not read as a single unit.
When a person writes [two letters] in two corners [of the walls of a house] or on two pages of a writing tablet and they can be read as a single unit, he is liable. ‎[12] If a person took a parchment or the like and wrote one letter upon it in one city and traveled on that same [Sabbath] day to another city where he wrote another letter on another scroll, he is liable. [This decision is rendered] because when the [two parchments] are brought close to each other, they can be read as a single unit. All that is necessary is to bring them together. ‎[13] The dark portion is the letter reish. When the serrated lines are filled in, the letter dalet is formed.
A person who writes merely one letter is not liable even when [that letter] is representative of an entire word. What is implied? One wrote a מ and everyone knows that the intent is the word *ma'aser* or one wrote [that letter] in the place where a number is required and thus it is as if one wrote [the word] "forty," one is not liable.
If one was checking a single letter and divided it, [creating] two [letters], one is liable; for example, one divided the connecting lines of a *chet*, thus creating two *zeinim*. The same applies in all similar situations. ‎[14] A person who writes with his left hand, with the back of one's hand, with his feet, his mouth, or with his elbow, is not liable.
A left-handed person who writes with his right hand - which for him is equivalent to other people's left hand - is not liable. If he writes with his left hand, he is liable. A person who is ambidextrous is liable regardless of whether he writes with his right or left hand.
When a child holds the pen and an adult holds his hand and moves it, causing him to write, the adult is liable. When an adult holds a pen and a child holds his hand and moves it, causing him to write, the adult is exempt. ‎[15] A person who writes is not liable until he writes with a substance that leaves a permanent mark - e.g., with ink, black tint, vermilion, gum, vitriol, and the like - on a surface on which the writing will remain preserved - e.g., a skin, parchment, paper, wood, and the like.
[In contrast,] a person is not liable if he writes with a substance that does not leave a permanent mark - e.g., beverages or fruit juice - or if he writes with ink and the like on a substance like vegetable leaves where the writing will not be preserved. One is liable only when writing with a substance that leaves a permanent mark on a surface where that mark will be preserved.
Similarly with regard to [the forbidden labor of erasing]: A person who erases is liable only when erasing writing that would leave a permanent mark from a surface where that mark will be preserved. ‎[16] A person who writes on his skin is liable, because his flesh is [comparable to an animal] hide. Even though the warmth of his flesh will cause the writing to fade afterwards, this is comparable to writing that was erased. In contrast, a person who engraves the forms of letters onto his skin is not liable.
A person who cuts out the form of letters on a hide is liable. In contrast, a person who makes a mark in the shape of letters on a hide is not liable.
A person who traces over letters that were written with vermilion with ink is liable for two [transgressions]: one for writing and one for erasing. [In contrast,] a person who traces with ink over letters that were written with ink, who traces with vermilion over letters that were written with vermilion, or who traces with vermilion over letters that were written with ink, is not liable. ‎[17] Making designs is a derivative [of the forbidden labor] of writing. What is implied? A person who makes designs or who creates forms on a wall or with red color and the like as artists do is liable [for performing a derivative of] writing. Similarly, a person who erases a design for the sake of correcting [it] is liable [for performing] a derivative [of the forbidden labor] of erasing.
A person who rules a line in order to write two letters below that line is liable. Carpenters who draw a red line on a beam to enable them to saw evenly perform a derivative of ruling a line. Similarly, stonemasons who [make lines] on a stone so that they will cut it evenly [perform a derivative of ruling a line.]
One is liable regardless of whether the line one rules is colored or without color.
Version: Mishneh Torah, trans. by Eliyahu Touger. Jerusalem, Moznaim Pub. c1986-c2007
Source: https://www.nli.org.il/he/books/NNL_ALEPH001020101/NLI
License: CC-BY-NC