Tzad

Trapping a living creature is one of the prohibited 39 melachot forbidden on shabbat. The details of this melacha (e.g. how to define "trapped", how it applies to domesticated animals, which species of animals are included, etc.) are discussed below.

Definition

In the mishkan, they would trap rams to use their skins for the curtains, and they would trap the chilazon for the dye known as techeilet.^[1]
Tzad is the melacha of containing a living creature in order to use it (or part of it).^[2]
1. One has also violated the melacha for simply locking the door when the animal is already inside.^[3]
Tzad doesn’t appear to have any toldot.^[4]

Setting a Trap on Shabbat

Interestingly enough, if one actually sets a trap on shabbat, one may not necessarily be violating tzad.
1. Some poskim say that one is obligated for setting a trap that will definitely catch something on Shabbat.^[5]
2. Others say that one is only obligated if the animal is already entering the trap as he sets it.^[6]
  1. Sephardim hold that it is permitted to put out a mouse trap on Shabbat since it is only grama.^[7]
  2. Ashkenazim are strict.^[8]

Unique Nature of Tzad

There are a few unique features of tzad:
1. It doesn't affect a change in the object upon which the melacha is being performed (i.e. the animal). This is in contrast to most other melachot, which do affect a change in the object upon which the melacha is performed.^[9]
2. It can perhaps be violated even without doing an action at the time that the melacha takes place (see above discussion regarding setting a trap on shabbat).
What exactly is the definition of tzad?
1. The achronim take different approaches to this question:
  1. Some define the melacha as bringing the animal from a state of being "free" to a state of being "trapped".
  2. Others define the melacha as the action of trapping itself, in contrast to other melachot which are result-oriented.^[10]
    1. This approach helps explain why one’s mindset matters more by tzad than it does by other melachot.^[11]

How Enclosed is Considered "Trapped"?

The biblical violation of trapping is only violated when one encloses the animal in a space small enough that a person could catch it in one "שחייא" (lit: lunge).^[12] There is a debate as to what exactly this means:
1. Some poskim hold that you have to be able to grasp the animal in one lunge.^[13]
2. Most poskim argue that you just have to be able to grasp the animal in one sprinting session (without stopping for a breather).^[14]
  1. This is obviously a much larger area than the first opinion.
  2. This is both a stringency with respect to trapping initially (i.e. the animal is "trapped" even if it's in a big area that requires more than one lunge to get it), but also a leniency with respect to trapping again (i.e. once the animal is in a pen of this size, then it will be permitted to bring the animal into the house, since it is already considered biblically trapped).
It is still forbidden on a rabbinic level to trap an animal into a pen bigger than the above size.^[15]

Which Animals Are Included?

Typically trapped ("mino nitzod")
1. The Torah-level prohibition of trapping on Shabbat applies only to an animal that people normally trap. If, however, it is a type of animal that is not normally trapped, trapping it is forbidden only rabbinically.^[16]
2. A fly is an example of an animal which isn't usually trapped, so it is only rabbinically forbidden to trap a fly.^[17]
3. The prohibition doesn’t apply to trapping people.^[18]
Slow animals
1. Some poskim permit trapping animals that move very slowly (e.g. turtle),^[19] since they are essentially already trapped given how easy it is to catch, but others argue.^[20]
Domesticated animals
1. See below section for details.

Heter of the Rashba

The Mishnah (Shabbat 106b) states that it is a biblical prohibition to close the door of a house on a deer.
Nonetheles, the Rashba^[21] has a remarkably novel ruling that it is permitted to shut the door even if one knows that the deer is inside, provided that one's intent is to guard the house (even if one's intent is also to trap the deer).^[22]
1. This is really quite a difficult position to understand, and the later poskim work hard to give an explanation.^[23]
The Ran^[24] argues that if one knew that the deer was inside, even if he did not intend to trap, it is a psik reisha and hence forbidden.
1. The halacha accords with the Ran against the Rashba.^[25]

Domesticated Animals / Pets

Many poskim hold that one may close the door of his house even if he owns a pet, provided that one of the following conditions is met:
1. The pet is totally domesticated.^[26]
2. The house is big enough that the pet doesn’t feel like it is being confined.^[27]
3. The house is large, and one’s intent is to protect the house from burglary (not to prevent the pet from leaving).^[28]
4. However, if the animal is rebellious, then one may not trap it.^[29]
Keeping an animal trapped
1. Some poskim hold that if an animal is trapped in an enclosure, and then one opens the door, it is permitted to close it again, since this isn't really considered like a new trapping.^[30]
2. However, most poskim disagree and do not allow re-blocking the entrance.^[31]
3. Nonetheless, it is a reason to be lenient if combined with other factors.^[32]
In any case, carrying the animal to an enclosed area is prohibited because they are muktzeh.^[33]

Safek Psik Reisha

If there is a fly or other insect in a small box or drawer, one may not close it fully on shabbat, thereby trapping the insect.^[34]
1. If one is unsure whether or not there is a fly or other insect in the box / drawer, one may close it.^[35]
  1. There is an interesting question in the poskim about how to view a safek psik reisha (e.g. you are unsure if there are flies in the box; if there are, then closing it is a psik reisha of tzad).^[36]
    1. Some say that it should be treated like any other davar she'eino mitkavein (action which may lead to undesired melacha but may not), and thus totally permitted.^[37]
    2. Others say it should be treated as a safek like any other safek.^[38]
  2. This question becomes relevant when the melacha under discussion would be biblical (e.g. you want to close the door of your house and you aren't sure whether there is a deer inside or not).
    1. If we treat safek psik reisha as a regular davar she'eino mitkavein, then it would be mutar to close the door of the house, but if we treat it as a safek on the act in question then it would be prohibited, since it is biblically forbidden to trap a deer in the house, and safek deorayta l'chumra.^[39]
However, if the box / drawer is big, then one may fully close it on shabbat, even though there is a fly inside.^[40]

Harmful Creatures

It is permitted to trap even non-lethal creatures (e.g. snakes and scorpions) on shabbat, if one's intention is to prevent them from causing harm.^[41]
One may not trap non-damaging creatures (e.g. mosquito), unless they are actively biting you.^[42]
There is a debate whether one may trap creatures with painful but relatively harmless bites (e.g. bee, wasp, hornet).
1. Some compare these insects to mosquitos and forbid trapping them unless they are actively biting or stinging you,^[43] whereas others are lenient and allow trapping them any time one is afraid of being stung.^[44]

Related Pages

Trapping on Shabbat

Links

Article on The Melacha of Trapping on Shabbat by Rabbi Josh Flug
Trapping Animals and People on Shabbos by Rabbi Michael Taubes

Sources

↑ See Rashi 73a s.v. Hatzad es hatzvi. See also gemara 75a
↑ Rashi and Rabbenu Chananel on 106a (See also Rambam Hilchos Shabbos 10:19) indicate that the paradigmatic way to trap an animal is to chase it into a house or some other sufficiently small place and close the door so that the animal can’t escape.
↑ Mishna 106b, Rambam Hilchos Shabbos 10:23
↑ Some meforshim try to explain how some ways of trapping, done differently than how it was done in the mishkan, are indeed only toldot. See Avnei Nezer O”C Siman 195
↑ Pri Megadim (Eshel Avraham 316:9) based on Tosfot (shabbat 17b s.v. ein porsin). Even though the actual trapping only takes place at a later point in time (once one is no longer taking any direct action), nonetheless one is considered to have violated tzad since they did an action on shabbat which would certainly result in trapping. Presumably, the Pri Megadim understands that the time delay does not constitute "grama".
↑ Mishna Brurah 316:18 from Magen Avraham, based on Tosfos 17b. Presumably they understand that the time delay makes this a case of grama, and so not biblically prohibited. See Tosfot Harosh (shabbat 17b s.v. ein porsin) who states explicitly that one is exempt if one sets a trap on shabbat and it catches an animal at a later point in time, "דאינו צד בידיים" (one isn't directly involved at the time of the trapping). For more details, see Toras Hamelochos vol. 5 p. 21-33
↑ Chazon Ovadia v. 5 p. 118
↑ Mishna Brurah 316:18
↑ Avnei Nezer O”C 189:7
↑ Shiurei Rav Shimon Shkop Kesubos 4:2. The idea here is that most melachot affect the object upon which the melacha is performed. If I plow, there are now holes in the ground. If I write, there are now letters on the page. Thus, those melachot are result-oriented. The prohibition is to bring about a particular result. However, trapping has no such affect. The animal looks exactly the same before and after the trapping (it's just in a more enclosed space). Thus, it is reasonable to say that perhaps the prohibition is not defined as bringing the animal to a state of being trapped (since really this isn't a different cheftza), but rather as the act of trapping itself.
↑ See for some examples Rashba 107a based on Yerushalmi and Magid Mishna Shabbos 10:17
↑ The Mishna shabbat 106b states that if one traps an animal into a pen which is still "מחוסר צידה" (lit: missing trapping), then it is only rabbinically forbidden. In other words, one has only violated the melacha of trapping if they have enclosed the animal in a space small enough such that it can be easily grasped without needing to "trap" it again. How small is this space? The gemara 106b cites rav ashi as holding that if you are able to grasp the animal in one "שחיא" then this is considered biblically trapped.
↑ Ritva shabbat 106b s.v. kol heicha. The Ritva didn't have in his girsa of the gemara the phrase "דרהיט בתריה" (lit: to run after it), and so this perhaps leads him to his interpretation.
↑ Rashbah beitzah 24a, as well as Maggid Mishna hilchot shabbat 10:20. Mishna Brurah 316:4 paskens this way.
↑ Shulchan Aruch 316:1, based on the mishna shabbat 106b.
↑ *The Gemara (Shabbat 106b) records a dispute between Rabanan and Rabbi Meir. Rabanan hold that there is a biblical prohibition to trap an animal that normally is trapped and there is a rabbinic prohibition to trap animals that are not usually trapped. Rabbi Meir, however, argues that both types of animals are included in the biblical prohibition. The Rambam (10:19 and 24), Tur, and S”A 316:3 rule in accordance with Rabanan.
According to Rashi 107a s.v. sh’lo l’tzorech, this petur is only when you are not trapping it to use it or something from it. See Tosfos Rid on 107b who explains how the rules of melcha sheina tzricha l’gufa apply in this context.
Most Rishonim however think it is more of a categorical rule, because meleches tzad only applies to certain species (Tosfos 107a s.v. Shelo.). See Avnei Nezer O”C 189-7 who explains why such a limitation of the melacha exists.
Shemirat Shabbat K’hilchata 27:33 clarifies that “normally trapped” refers to animals that are trapped for meat or hide, but animals that are trapped so that they don’t injure a person are not included in the biblical prohibition.
↑ Shulchan Aruch 316:3.
↑ The Rama 339:4 says that one may not catch a criminal on shabbat in order to put them in prison, because this is considered like din (lit: judgement) which is rabbinically forbidden on shabbat. The implication here seems to be that with respect to the melacha of tzad there is no problem with trapping the criminal on shabbat. Shemirat Shabbat Kehilchata (chap 27 note 119) quotes Rav Shlomo Zalman who discusses this at length and seems to conclude that trapping isn't applicable on a person, because a normal person wouldn't think of running away, unless he's running away from the police; even in such a case, since he will be put in prison amongst other people, he's not considered trapped. Yalkut Yosef 316:2 writes that the prohibition doesn't apply to people. See also Sh"t Avnei Nezer OC 189:22.
↑
The Gemara (Shabbat 106b) distinguishes between a deer that is blind or sleeping and one that is lame, old, or sick. If one traps a deer in the first category, there is a biblical prohibition, because it could run away; if one traps a deer in the second category, there is a rabbinic prohibition, because it does not run away. This is codified by the Rambam (10:21 and 24), Tur, and S”A 316:2. The Mishna Brurah 316:8 explains the Rambam 10:24 as saying that trapping a young animal that cannot run away is only a rabbinic prohibition.
- Shemirat Shabbat K’hilchata 27:45 quotes Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach that it is permitted to trap an animal that is easy to trap and doesn’t usually run away, such as an ant or turtle. Nonetheless, one may not move them, as they are muktzeh. Rav Shlomo Zalman explains that a sick animal usually can run away, so trapping it is prohibited, but an ant always is easy to trap even if it tries to hide. The 39 Melachos (vol 3, p. 863) agrees with this ruling but qualifies that only small red ants may be trapped, while large black ants that can move very quickly may not be trapped.
↑ Orchot Shabbat (vol 1, p. 420, quoting Rav Elyashiv) and The Shabbos Home (p. 339, note 4, based on the Chazon Ish) forbid trapping animals that move very slowly and are easy to trap, just like it is forbidden to trap an old or sick animal.
↑ shabbat 107a s.v. Tosefta
↑ He bases this on the Yerushalmi shabbat 13:6, which he reads as permitting closing the door on the deer, as long as one has intent (primarily) for some other purpose such as guarding the house. This is a very surprising opinion, because one would have thought that this was a prime example of a psik reisha. Here you are closing the door for some reason, and an unintended result is that the deer gets trapped. This should be biblically forbidden as a psik reisha! And certainly if one has intent for both things (i.e. guarding the house and trapping the deer), then this should certainly be prohibited. It isn't even a psik reisha at that point. You are explicitly intending to trap the deer!
↑
Here are a few possibilities:
- (1) the shiltei giborim (38a b'dapei harif) says that maybe the rashba thinks that one is allowed to do a psik reisha if it accompanies a permitted act. Here, one is doing the permitted act of closing the door to guard the house, and so in conjunction with that one may also do a psik reisha. However, this is difficult, as seemingly every psik reisha is accompanying a permitted act...
- (2) the shiltei giborim also suggests that maybe the rashba understands psik reisha as only being relevant when the melacha always accompanies the permitted act. Here, it is entirely possible to close a door to a house without trapping a deer (e.g. if there's no deer in the house). This is similar to how rashi in zevachim 91b says that one may pour big droplets on a fire when libating wine and it isn't a psik reisha because it's possible to have poured small droplets (thus libating doesn't always have to come along with putting out the fire). This too is difficult, as seemingly there are many examples of psik reisha in which the two actions are not fundamentally linked in this way (and certainly l'halacha we don't understand psik reisha in this more limited way).
- (3) the Avnei Nezer O.C. 194 explains that really the heter of the rashba is limited to tzad, since this melacha is weird in that it doesn't result in any clear change in the cheftza upon which the melacha is performed. This is a "melacha garu'a" (lit: bad melacha), and so perhaps it will only be prohibited if one intends explicitly to do it. Rav Shimon Shkop has a similar idea. It's specifically by tzad that kavana plays an outsized role.
↑ shabbat 38a b'dapei harif s.v. Ha
↑ Rav Ovadia Yosef (Yabia Omer 4:35:13) sees from the Rama 316:3 that he rejects the Rashba, since the Rama there prohibits one from covering a box with flies in it even though one's intent is not to trap the flies but rather just to protect the contents of the box. In truth, this observation was actually made earlier by the Elya Raba and Rebbe Akiva Eiger (cited in shaar hatziyon 316:33). The Mishna Brurah 316:25 explicitly rejects the Rashba, and states in shaar hatziyon 316:33 that poskim are unwilling to rely upon the Rashba in basically all circumstances.
↑
The mishna shabbat 107a states that if one has an animal or bird in their "reshut" (lit: domain), they are patur if they trap it. The simple understanding of this mishna is that there is still an isur drabanan to trap it (since generally when the mishnayot in shabbat use the phrase "patur" it means that it is rabbinically prohibited). However, the haga'ot maymoniyot (hilchot shabbat ch 10, ot 200), as well as the ba'al ha'itur (cited in the Rosh betizah 3:1) hold that perhaps this mishna is really saying that it's permitted to trap such an animal, since you aren't really doing anything by "trapping" an animal which is already in your reshut. The Shulchan Aruch 316:12 seems to pasken this way, as understood by the Gra (cited in shaar hatziyon 316:81). The mishna brurah 316:53 explains that what it means for an animal to be in your "reshut" is that it is a domesticated animal that is used to living in your house and will come back at night even if it leaves during the day. Such an animal is extremely easy to "trap", since it is essentially already trapped and part of your household, and thus there would be no problem to bring it into the house from the outside on shabbat (leaving aside questions of muktzah).
- However, the Rama 316:12 argues and says that it is rabbinically prohibited to trap an animal or bird even if it is domesticated in your house. He understands the mishna in shabbat k'pshuto, that "patur" does not mean mutar. The Mishna Brurah 316:57 states that most achronim pasken like the Rama against the Shulchan Aruch. Thus it should be rabbinically prohibited to trap even domesticated animals.
- However, the Rama continues and states that a cow or horse that rebels, and all the more so a regular animal that rebels, is biblically prohibited to trap. Why does he put cows and horses in a different category as other animals? The answer is found in the Darchei Moshe 316:2, in which he cites from the Shiltei Giborim that one is allowed to bring in a cow or horse into his house, but not other animals. The Mishna Brurah 316:59 explains the reason for the distinction; cows and horses are exceptionally docile, and even before a person trains them to always come back to the house, their nature is that they will just allow you to corral them. Thus, there is no isur of tzad on these animals whatsoever (assuming they don't rebel).
- Chayei Adam 30:4 thus writes that a domesticated animal that relaxes and submits when grabbed by its owner may be trapped. Mishna Brurah 316:57 and The 39 Melachos (vol 3, p. 868) agree. Dirshu mishna brurah (316 footnote 102) cites from Rav Nissim Karelitz that a domesticated cat or dog which serves as a pet has this status as well, and so it will be permitted to close the door of the house on them provided that they haven't rebelled.
↑ Chut HaShani (vol 1, p. 120) writes that there is a rabbinic prohibition only if the animal feels that it is being confined. It is permitted to trap an animal in an area that is so large that it doesn’t even realize it is being confined. The Shabbos Home (p. 353) agrees.
↑ Shulchan Aruch 316:1 (based on the mishna shabbat 106b) establishes that it is a rabbinic prohibition to confine an animal to a space even if it is not completely trapped. Mishna Brurah 316:4 explains that an animal is considered “not completely trapped” if one couldn’t grab it with one exertion. Therefore, Mishna Brurah 316:5 writes that one may close the door of a house even though a bird is inside, if it is cold outside and one’s intention is not to trap the bird. He reasons that since trapping the bird is only a rabbinic prohibition (since the bird is not really trapped in a house), it is permitted if one does not intend to trap it. Rav Mordechai Willig (Am Mordechai p. 174) explains that the Mishna Brurah holds that a psik reisha of a rabbinic prohibition is permitted when there is a great need. Therefore, the 39 Melachos (Tzad, note 144a) says that one may close one’s door if a pet is inside as long as he is closing the door to protect against burglary or the elements, and the house is large (since then it's only an isur drabanan to trap it).
↑ Hazon Ovadia, Page 106. Rama 316:12 distinguishes between a cow / horse that rebels (biblically forbidden to trap it) and one that has not rebelled (totally permitted to trap it).
↑ The mishna shabbat 106b states that if there is a deer inside of a house and the door is open, and one person sits in front of the entrance to block it, they have violated tzad. If a second person sits behind them, they haven't done anything. If the first person then gets up and leaves, the second person may remain, since he isn't currently doing any action (i.e. we don't make him get up, even though right now he's the one keeping the deer in the house). The tosfot yom tov on this mishna explains that it must be that when the first guy got up, he walked into the house, because if he were to go towards the outside, the second person would have to get up to make room to enable him to pass, and then it would indeed be prohibited for the second guy to sit back down, since at that point he would be actively entrapping the deer in the house. However, the Magen Avraham 316:11 argues and suggests that it should even be permitted for the second guy to stand up and enable the first guy to leave, and then to sit back down and block the entrance. Why is this not tzad? The Magen Avraham seemingly understands that since the animal is already trapped inside the house, the fact that for a brief moment, the entrance became unblocked doesn't give the animal the status of "untrapped". It is still considered "trapped", and so there is no problem for the second guy to re-block the entrance.
↑ The Mishna Brurah 316:25 paskens like the tosfot yom tov against the Magen Avraham, to now allow the re-blocking the entrance after it was left exposed. The Biur Halacha (316:6 s.v. v'halach) explains that the majority of achronim reject the Magen Avraham, and that's why he paskenned like the Tosfot yom tov.
↑ The Biur Halacha (316:6 s.v. v'halach) states that one may rely upon the Magen Avraham if the trapping in question is only rabbinic anyway for a different reason, such as if the house is really big (so it is not considered "one lunge"), or if the animal is domesticated such that it would come back at night on its own (even though we are strict like the Rama in 316:12 to prohibit trapping domesticated animals, in contrast to the Shulchan Aruch who permits it, we can rely upon the Magen Avraham in such an instance).
↑ Ach Tov VaHessed, Year 5783, Page 123
↑
The Tur siman 316 cites from the Ba'al Hatruma that one may not close a chest that has flies in it, since it is rabbinically forbidden to trap flies on shabbat (they are not a species that is typically trapped), and this is a psik reisha that they will be trapped. The Tur himself disagrees for two reasons. (1) the flies aren't really considered trapped in the box, since the second you open the box they will fly away out of your grasp. (2) you don't have kavana (lit: intent) to trap the flies, but rather just to close the box. It is unclear what exactly the Tur means by this last argument. Is he saying that there is no problem of psik reisha by an isur drabanan? Perhaps. This is indeed the position of the Terumat Hadeshen (siman 64, cited in Magen Avraham 314:5). The Magen Avraham himself argues and holds that a psik reisha on an isur drabanan is also asur. The Beit Yosef and the Bach both recommend being strict like the ba'al hatruma against the Tur, and not to close the chest if there are insects inside that will inevitably be trapped.
- However, the Rama 316:3 cites this halacha in an interesting way. He states that one may not close a SMALL box that has flies in it (seemingly the shita of the ba'al hatruma), but that others are lenient and permit it (i.e. the Tur). Seemingly, the Rama understood that even the ba'al hatruma would allow one to close a BIG box. The Mishna Brurah 316:15 explains that a big box is a double drabanan (flies aren't typically trapped, and the area is bigger than "a single lunge"), so we can be lenient for a psik reish d'lo nicha lei (one has no interest in trapping the fly) on a double drabanan.
↑ Taz 316:3. Mishna Brurah 316:16. The reason is that this is a safek psik reisha on an isur drabanan (flies aren't typically trapped), so we can be lenient.
↑ Generally speaking, if one performs an action on shabbat that may lead to undesired melacha but might not, that action is deemed a davar she'eino mitkavein and is permitted on shabbat. For example, one may drag a bench on the ground even though there is a chance that it will create a furrow, since one is not interested in the furrow, and because the furrow won't certainly be made (i.e. it's not a psik reisha). See Shulchan Aruch 337:1. In theory, one might think that this case should be treated exactly the same. I just want to close the drawer, and am not interested in trapping the fly. The melacha of trapping may or may not occur, depending on if there really is a fly in the drawer or not. Why should this be different than a regular davar she'eino mitkavein?
↑ Taz 316:3
↑ Biur Halacha 316:3 s.v. v'lachein, citing Chiddushei Rebbe Akiva Eiger YD:87:6. He explains that one can distinguish between a safek about the future vs. a safek about the past. Only a safek about the future (whether this action will cause a hole or not) is considered a davar she'eino mitkavein, but not a safek about the past (are there currently flies in this box or not).
↑ See Biur Halacha 316:3 s.v. v'lachein, who makes this point.
↑ Rama 316:3 and Mishna Brurah 316:15. See previous note.
↑
The mishna eduyot 2:5 says that if one traps a snake for the purpose of using it in a healing potion, then one has violated tzad, but if one merely wants to prevent it from biting him, then one is patur. Shmuel (gemara shabbat 107a) explains that this is one of the rare exceptions in which "patur" really means that it is totally permitted, and not rabbinically forbidden. Why should trapping the snake for this reason be permitted?
- One approach is to say that if one isn't interested in the snake for its own sake, but rather just to get rid of it, then this is a melacha she'eina tzricha l'gufa. We pasken like Rebbe Shimon that this is only rabbinically forbidden in general. Here, since there is potential human suffering at risk, chazal were lenient and allowed one to trap the snake. Tosfot (shabbat 3a s.v. hatzad nachash) explains like this.
- However, the fascinating thing as that the Rambam himself paskens like Rebbe Yehudah with respect to melacha she'eina tzricha l'gufa (see hilchot shabbat 1:8), and yet he still cites the leniency to trap the snake to prevent it from biting you (hilchot shabbat 10:25). Furthermore, the Rambam there states explicitly that the type of snake he is referring to is one which is non-lethal, so there's no concern of pikuach nefesh here. What's the rationale of the Rambam? Shouldn't this be biblically forbidden? There are a few approaches to answer this question.
- (1) The Ramban (shabbat 42a s.v. mechabin) cites from the Behag that perhaps a damage that might occur to the public is viewed as if it is pikuach nefesh, even though it isn't ("היזק של רבים כסכנת נפשות חשיב ליה שמואל").
- (2) The Aruch Hashulchan 316:19 suggests that since the whole point of trapping is to bring the animal into your own domain, so when you trap an animal in order to remove it from your domain (e.g. you want the snake as far away from you as possible so that it doesn't damage you), this is not merely a melacha she'eina tzricha l'gufa, but rather it just isn't the melacha of tzad at all.
- (3) Maggid Mishna (hilchot shabbat 10:17) understands that the Rambam only permitted trapping the snake in a weird way ("shinuy") that would normally only be rabbinically prohibited. He has a diyuk from the language of the Rambam himself (in hilchot shabbat 10:25), who goes out of his way to tell you how you may trap the snake to prevent it from biting you, seemingly indicating that only these limited methods are allowed.
- (4) The Chemed Moshe (cited in Biur halacha 316:7 s.v. nechashim) thinks that the Rambam understood that snakes are considered a species not typically trapped (ein b'mino nitzod), such that there would only ever be an isur drabanan to trap them. The Biur Halacha himself objects to this approach.
- (5) Rav Chaim Brisker (hilchot shabbat 10:17) thinks that the Rambam paskens like the position of the Aruch that a psik reish d'lo nicha lei (one performs an action which inevitably results in melacha, but one is disinterested in that melacha) is totally permitted [this is not the accepted position l'halacha, as we hold that such an action is still rabbinically forbidden]. Here, since you are just trying to prevent the snake from biting you, the trapping that results is an undesired consequence, and hence constitutes a psik reisha d'lo nicha lei.
↑
The gemara shabbat 107b cites a whether it is forbidden to trap a פרעוש (mosquito) biblically, or only rabbinically. The debate turns on whether one is only obligated for trapping a creature whose species is typically trapped (people do not typically trap mosquitos to use them for anything). However, tosfot s.v. hatzad point out that even though we pasken like Rebbe Yehoshua (that it's rabbinically forbidden to trap them), if they are biting you, it is permitted to grab it and throw it off, even though this violates both muktzeh and tzad (rabbinically). There is a debate amongst the poskim whether tosfot was only permitting trapping the mosquito if it was actively engaged in biting, or even if it was in a place on your clothing such that it might come to start biting. There are 4 positions on this question, in order of lenient to strict:
- (1) The Taz 316:8 thinks even if it is on the outside of one's garment, it is permitted to trap it, as long as this garment is directly on the skin (as opposed to a jacket).
- (2) The beit yosef is medayek in the Ran (38b b'dapei harif) that it's permitted only if it is on the inside of one's garment, since now there is a real concern that it might bite.
- (3) The Tur seems to hold that one may only pluck off the mosquito if it is actually on the skin.
- (4) The Rokeach (cited in shaar hatziyon 316:63) holds that it is only permitted if it is actually biting, since only then is it actually causing pain, and we would allow one to violate the isur drabanan of trapping it in order to remove the pain. This also seems to be the position of the Gra (as understood by Mishna Brurah 316:37).
- l'halacha, the Mishna Brurah 316:37 cites numerous shitot, and concludes in shaar hatziyon 316:63 that it is proper to be strict and only trap it if it is actually biting. However, he also states that one shouldn't object to those who are lenient.
↑ The Dirshu Mishna Brurah (siman 316 footnote 82) cites from Rav Shlomo Zalmen that a wasp is treated like a פרעוש (mosquito). Dirshu (siman 316 footnote 64) cites this from the Alter Rebbe as well.
↑ Dirshu (siman 316 footnote 64) cites from Rav Nissim Karelitz that he viewed even bees (which are less painful than wasps) as being akin to snakes / scorpions, and thus you would be allowed to trap it even if not being chased.

Category	Topic
Mitzvot of Shabbat	Kiddush Levana - Enjoying Shabbat - Fourth meal of Shabbat - Havdalah - Having a meal on Friday - In the Spirit of Shabbat - Kiddush - Lighting Shabbat Candles - Making Early Shabbat - Making one hundred Brachot on Shabbat - Preparing foods on Shabbat - Preparing for Shabbat - Shenayim Mikrah - Kavod Shabbat - Shabbos Davening - Seudat Shabbat - Seudat Shelishit - Lechem Mishneh - Motzei Shabbat - When Does Shabbat Start?
Restrictions of Shabbat	Allowing Carrying Using an Eruv Chatzerot - Animals on Shabbat - Asking a Jew to work on Shabbat - Asking a non-Jew to work on Shabbat (Amirah LeNochri) - Benefiting from a Violation of Shabbat (Maaseh Shabbat) - Books, notebooks, and papers - Brushing Teeth on Shabbat - Building a structure on Shabbat (Boneh) - Carrying on Shabbat - Cleaning the dishes - Cleaning and Folding Garments on Shabbat - Clearing the table - Cooking (Ofeh and Bishul) - Cosmetics on Shabbat - Dancing and clapping on Shabbat - Electricity on Shabbat - Eruv Chatzerot - Eruvin - Games on Shabbat - Getting dressed on Shabbat - Giving birth on Shabbat - Grinding (Tochen) - Handling objects on Shabbat (Muktzeh) - Infants on Shabbat - Introduction to the Modern Eruv - Kneading (Lash) - Mail on Shabbat - Medicine on Shabbat (Refuah on Shabbat) - Melacha That Begins Before Shabbat - Opening bottles and containers (Boneh) - Plants on Shabbat (Zoreah) - Preparing for after Shabbat (Hachana) - Reading on Shabbat (Daber Davar) - Recreation on Shabbat - Sechirut Reshut - Separating mixtures (Borer) - Squeezing fruits (Sechita) - Speaking on Shabbat (Daber Davar) - Taking a cruise over Shabbat - Taking measurements on Shabbat - Techum - Transactions on Shabbat - Transportation on Shabbat - Going to and Staying in the Hospital on Shabbat - Wages on Shabbat (Sachar Shabbat) - Washing one’s body on Shabbat
Melachos	Introduction to Melechet Machshevet - Marbeh Bshiurim - Plowing - Planting - Harvesting - Gathering - Threshing - Winnowing - Separating - Grinding - Sifting - Kneading - Baking and Cooking - Shearing - Laundering - Combing - Dyeing - Spinning - Mounting warp threads - Making two loops - Weaving - Unraveling fabric - Tying - Untying - Gluing, taping, or stapling - Ripping - Trapping - Slaughtering - Skinning - Tanning - Smoothing - Scoring - Cutting precisely - Writing - Erasing - Building - Demolishing - Completing a vessel - Extinguishing a flame - Kindling a fire - Carrying

[1] See Rashi 73a s.v. Hatzad es hatzvi. See also gemara 75a

[2] Rashi and Rabbenu Chananel on 106a (See also Rambam Hilchos Shabbos 10:19) indicate that the paradigmatic way to trap an animal is to chase it into a house or some other sufficiently small place and close the door so that the animal can’t escape.

[3] Mishna 106b, Rambam Hilchos Shabbos 10:23

[4] Some meforshim try to explain how some ways of trapping, done differently than how it was done in the mishkan, are indeed only toldot. See Avnei Nezer O”C Siman 195

[5] Pri Megadim (Eshel Avraham 316:9) based on Tosfot (shabbat 17b s.v. ein porsin). Even though the actual trapping only takes place at a later point in time (once one is no longer taking any direct action), nonetheless one is considered to have violated tzad since they did an action on shabbat which would certainly result in trapping. Presumably, the Pri Megadim understands that the time delay does not constitute "grama".

[6] Mishna Brurah 316:18 from Magen Avraham, based on Tosfos 17b. Presumably they understand that the time delay makes this a case of grama, and so not biblically prohibited. See Tosfot Harosh (shabbat 17b s.v. ein porsin) who states explicitly that one is exempt if one sets a trap on shabbat and it catches an animal at a later point in time, "דאינו צד בידיים" (one isn't directly involved at the time of the trapping). For more details, see Toras Hamelochos vol. 5 p. 21-33

[7] Chazon Ovadia v. 5 p. 118

[8] Mishna Brurah 316:18

[9] Avnei Nezer O”C 189:7

[10] Shiurei Rav Shimon Shkop Kesubos 4:2. The idea here is that most melachot affect the object upon which the melacha is performed. If I plow, there are now holes in the ground. If I write, there are now letters on the page. Thus, those melachot are result-oriented. The prohibition is to bring about a particular result. However, trapping has no such affect. The animal looks exactly the same before and after the trapping (it's just in a more enclosed space). Thus, it is reasonable to say that perhaps the prohibition is not defined as bringing the animal to a state of being trapped (since really this isn't a different cheftza), but rather as the act of trapping itself.

[11] See for some examples Rashba 107a based on Yerushalmi and Magid Mishna Shabbos 10:17

[12] The Mishna shabbat 106b states that if one traps an animal into a pen which is still "מחוסר צידה" (lit: missing trapping), then it is only rabbinically forbidden. In other words, one has only violated the melacha of trapping if they have enclosed the animal in a space small enough such that it can be easily grasped without needing to "trap" it again. How small is this space? The gemara 106b cites rav ashi as holding that if you are able to grasp the animal in one "שחיא" then this is considered biblically trapped.

[13] Ritva shabbat 106b s.v. kol heicha. The Ritva didn't have in his girsa of the gemara the phrase "דרהיט בתריה" (lit: to run after it), and so this perhaps leads him to his interpretation.

[14] Rashbah beitzah 24a, as well as Maggid Mishna hilchot shabbat 10:20. Mishna Brurah 316:4 paskens this way.

[15] Shulchan Aruch 316:1, based on the mishna shabbat 106b.

[16] *The Gemara (Shabbat 106b) records a dispute between Rabanan and Rabbi Meir. Rabanan hold that there is a biblical prohibition to trap an animal that normally is trapped and there is a rabbinic prohibition to trap animals that are not usually trapped. Rabbi Meir, however, argues that both types of animals are included in the biblical prohibition. The Rambam (10:19 and 24), Tur, and S”A 316:3 rule in accordance with Rabanan.
According to Rashi 107a s.v. sh’lo l’tzorech, this petur is only when you are not trapping it to use it or something from it. See Tosfos Rid on 107b who explains how the rules of melcha sheina tzricha l’gufa apply in this context.
Most Rishonim however think it is more of a categorical rule, because meleches tzad only applies to certain species (Tosfos 107a s.v. Shelo.). See Avnei Nezer O”C 189-7 who explains why such a limitation of the melacha exists.
Shemirat Shabbat K’hilchata 27:33 clarifies that “normally trapped” refers to animals that are trapped for meat or hide, but animals that are trapped so that they don’t injure a person are not included in the biblical prohibition.

[17] Shulchan Aruch 316:3.

[18] The Rama 339:4 says that one may not catch a criminal on shabbat in order to put them in prison, because this is considered like din (lit: judgement) which is rabbinically forbidden on shabbat. The implication here seems to be that with respect to the melacha of tzad there is no problem with trapping the criminal on shabbat. Shemirat Shabbat Kehilchata (chap 27 note 119) quotes Rav Shlomo Zalman who discusses this at length and seems to conclude that trapping isn't applicable on a person, because a normal person wouldn't think of running away, unless he's running away from the police; even in such a case, since he will be put in prison amongst other people, he's not considered trapped. Yalkut Yosef 316:2 writes that the prohibition doesn't apply to people. See also Sh"t Avnei Nezer OC 189:22.

[19] The Gemara (Shabbat 106b) distinguishes between a deer that is blind or sleeping and one that is lame, old, or sick. If one traps a deer in the first category, there is a biblical prohibition, because it could run away; if one traps a deer in the second category, there is a rabbinic prohibition, because it does not run away. This is codified by the Rambam (10:21 and 24), Tur, and S”A 316:2. The Mishna Brurah 316:8 explains the Rambam 10:24 as saying that trapping a young animal that cannot run away is only a rabbinic prohibition.
Shemirat Shabbat K’hilchata 27:45 quotes Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach that it is permitted to trap an animal that is easy to trap and doesn’t usually run away, such as an ant or turtle. Nonetheless, one may not move them, as they are muktzeh. Rav Shlomo Zalman explains that a sick animal usually can run away, so trapping it is prohibited, but an ant always is easy to trap even if it tries to hide. The 39 Melachos (vol 3, p. 863) agrees with this ruling but qualifies that only small red ants may be trapped, while large black ants that can move very quickly may not be trapped.

[20] Shemirat Shabbat K’hilchata 27:45 quotes Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach that it is permitted to trap an animal that is easy to trap and doesn’t usually run away, such as an ant or turtle. Nonetheless, one may not move them, as they are muktzeh. Rav Shlomo Zalman explains that a sick animal usually can run away, so trapping it is prohibited, but an ant always is easy to trap even if it tries to hide. The 39 Melachos (vol 3, p. 863) agrees with this ruling but qualifies that only small red ants may be trapped, while large black ants that can move very quickly may not be trapped.

[20] Orchot Shabbat (vol 1, p. 420, quoting Rav Elyashiv) and The Shabbos Home (p. 339, note 4, based on the Chazon Ish) forbid trapping animals that move very slowly and are easy to trap, just like it is forbidden to trap an old or sick animal.

[21] shabbat 107a s.v. Tosefta

[22] He bases this on the Yerushalmi shabbat 13:6, which he reads as permitting closing the door on the deer, as long as one has intent (primarily) for some other purpose such as guarding the house. This is a very surprising opinion, because one would have thought that this was a prime example of a psik reisha. Here you are closing the door for some reason, and an unintended result is that the deer gets trapped. This should be biblically forbidden as a psik reisha! And certainly if one has intent for both things (i.e. guarding the house and trapping the deer), then this should certainly be prohibited. It isn't even a psik reisha at that point. You are explicitly intending to trap the deer!

[23] Here are a few possibilities:
(1) the shiltei giborim (38a b'dapei harif) says that maybe the rashba thinks that one is allowed to do a psik reisha if it accompanies a permitted act. Here, one is doing the permitted act of closing the door to guard the house, and so in conjunction with that one may also do a psik reisha. However, this is difficult, as seemingly every psik reisha is accompanying a permitted act...

(2) the shiltei giborim also suggests that maybe the rashba understands psik reisha as only being relevant when the melacha always accompanies the permitted act. Here, it is entirely possible to close a door to a house without trapping a deer (e.g. if there's no deer in the house). This is similar to how rashi in zevachim 91b says that one may pour big droplets on a fire when libating wine and it isn't a psik reisha because it's possible to have poured small droplets (thus libating doesn't always have to come along with putting out the fire). This too is difficult, as seemingly there are many examples of psik reisha in which the two actions are not fundamentally linked in this way (and certainly l'halacha we don't understand psik reisha in this more limited way).

(3) the Avnei Nezer O.C. 194 explains that really the heter of the rashba is limited to tzad, since this melacha is weird in that it doesn't result in any clear change in the cheftza upon which the melacha is performed. This is a "melacha garu'a" (lit: bad melacha), and so perhaps it will only be prohibited if one intends explicitly to do it. Rav Shimon Shkop has a similar idea. It's specifically by tzad that kavana plays an outsized role.

[25] (1) the shiltei giborim (38a b'dapei harif) says that maybe the rashba thinks that one is allowed to do a psik reisha if it accompanies a permitted act. Here, one is doing the permitted act of closing the door to guard the house, and so in conjunction with that one may also do a psik reisha. However, this is difficult, as seemingly every psik reisha is accompanying a permitted act...

[26] (2) the shiltei giborim also suggests that maybe the rashba understands psik reisha as only being relevant when the melacha always accompanies the permitted act. Here, it is entirely possible to close a door to a house without trapping a deer (e.g. if there's no deer in the house). This is similar to how rashi in zevachim 91b says that one may pour big droplets on a fire when libating wine and it isn't a psik reisha because it's possible to have poured small droplets (thus libating doesn't always have to come along with putting out the fire). This too is difficult, as seemingly there are many examples of psik reisha in which the two actions are not fundamentally linked in this way (and certainly l'halacha we don't understand psik reisha in this more limited way).

[27] (3) the Avnei Nezer O.C. 194 explains that really the heter of the rashba is limited to tzad, since this melacha is weird in that it doesn't result in any clear change in the cheftza upon which the melacha is performed. This is a "melacha garu'a" (lit: bad melacha), and so perhaps it will only be prohibited if one intends explicitly to do it. Rav Shimon Shkop has a similar idea. It's specifically by tzad that kavana plays an outsized role.

[24] shabbat 38a b'dapei harif s.v. Ha

[25] Rav Ovadia Yosef (Yabia Omer 4:35:13) sees from the Rama 316:3 that he rejects the Rashba, since the Rama there prohibits one from covering a box with flies in it even though one's intent is not to trap the flies but rather just to protect the contents of the box. In truth, this observation was actually made earlier by the Elya Raba and Rebbe Akiva Eiger (cited in shaar hatziyon 316:33). The Mishna Brurah 316:25 explicitly rejects the Rashba, and states in shaar hatziyon 316:33 that poskim are unwilling to rely upon the Rashba in basically all circumstances.

[26] The mishna shabbat 107a states that if one has an animal or bird in their "reshut" (lit: domain), they are patur if they trap it. The simple understanding of this mishna is that there is still an isur drabanan to trap it (since generally when the mishnayot in shabbat use the phrase "patur" it means that it is rabbinically prohibited). However, the haga'ot maymoniyot (hilchot shabbat ch 10, ot 200), as well as the ba'al ha'itur (cited in the Rosh betizah 3:1) hold that perhaps this mishna is really saying that it's permitted to trap such an animal, since you aren't really doing anything by "trapping" an animal which is already in your reshut. The Shulchan Aruch 316:12 seems to pasken this way, as understood by the Gra (cited in shaar hatziyon 316:81). The mishna brurah 316:53 explains that what it means for an animal to be in your "reshut" is that it is a domesticated animal that is used to living in your house and will come back at night even if it leaves during the day. Such an animal is extremely easy to "trap", since it is essentially already trapped and part of your household, and thus there would be no problem to bring it into the house from the outside on shabbat (leaving aside questions of muktzah).
However, the Rama 316:12 argues and says that it is rabbinically prohibited to trap an animal or bird even if it is domesticated in your house. He understands the mishna in shabbat k'pshuto, that "patur" does not mean mutar. The Mishna Brurah 316:57 states that most achronim pasken like the Rama against the Shulchan Aruch. Thus it should be rabbinically prohibited to trap even domesticated animals.

However, the Rama continues and states that a cow or horse that rebels, and all the more so a regular animal that rebels, is biblically prohibited to trap. Why does he put cows and horses in a different category as other animals? The answer is found in the Darchei Moshe 316:2, in which he cites from the Shiltei Giborim that one is allowed to bring in a cow or horse into his house, but not other animals. The Mishna Brurah 316:59 explains the reason for the distinction; cows and horses are exceptionally docile, and even before a person trains them to always come back to the house, their nature is that they will just allow you to corral them. Thus, there is no isur of tzad on these animals whatsoever (assuming they don't rebel).

Chayei Adam 30:4 thus writes that a domesticated animal that relaxes and submits when grabbed by its owner may be trapped. Mishna Brurah 316:57 and The 39 Melachos (vol 3, p. 868) agree. Dirshu mishna brurah (316 footnote 102) cites from Rav Nissim Karelitz that a domesticated cat or dog which serves as a pet has this status as well, and so it will be permitted to close the door of the house on them provided that they haven't rebelled.

[31] However, the Rama 316:12 argues and says that it is rabbinically prohibited to trap an animal or bird even if it is domesticated in your house. He understands the mishna in shabbat k'pshuto, that "patur" does not mean mutar. The Mishna Brurah 316:57 states that most achronim pasken like the Rama against the Shulchan Aruch. Thus it should be rabbinically prohibited to trap even domesticated animals.

[32] However, the Rama continues and states that a cow or horse that rebels, and all the more so a regular animal that rebels, is biblically prohibited to trap. Why does he put cows and horses in a different category as other animals? The answer is found in the Darchei Moshe 316:2, in which he cites from the Shiltei Giborim that one is allowed to bring in a cow or horse into his house, but not other animals. The Mishna Brurah 316:59 explains the reason for the distinction; cows and horses are exceptionally docile, and even before a person trains them to always come back to the house, their nature is that they will just allow you to corral them. Thus, there is no isur of tzad on these animals whatsoever (assuming they don't rebel).

[33] Chayei Adam 30:4 thus writes that a domesticated animal that relaxes and submits when grabbed by its owner may be trapped. Mishna Brurah 316:57 and The 39 Melachos (vol 3, p. 868) agree. Dirshu mishna brurah (316 footnote 102) cites from Rav Nissim Karelitz that a domesticated cat or dog which serves as a pet has this status as well, and so it will be permitted to close the door of the house on them provided that they haven't rebelled.

[27] Chut HaShani (vol 1, p. 120) writes that there is a rabbinic prohibition only if the animal feels that it is being confined. It is permitted to trap an animal in an area that is so large that it doesn’t even realize it is being confined. The Shabbos Home (p. 353) agrees.

[28] Shulchan Aruch 316:1 (based on the mishna shabbat 106b) establishes that it is a rabbinic prohibition to confine an animal to a space even if it is not completely trapped. Mishna Brurah 316:4 explains that an animal is considered “not completely trapped” if one couldn’t grab it with one exertion. Therefore, Mishna Brurah 316:5 writes that one may close the door of a house even though a bird is inside, if it is cold outside and one’s intention is not to trap the bird. He reasons that since trapping the bird is only a rabbinic prohibition (since the bird is not really trapped in a house), it is permitted if one does not intend to trap it. Rav Mordechai Willig (Am Mordechai p. 174) explains that the Mishna Brurah holds that a psik reisha of a rabbinic prohibition is permitted when there is a great need. Therefore, the 39 Melachos (Tzad, note 144a) says that one may close one’s door if a pet is inside as long as he is closing the door to protect against burglary or the elements, and the house is large (since then it's only an isur drabanan to trap it).

[29] Hazon Ovadia, Page 106. Rama 316:12 distinguishes between a cow / horse that rebels (biblically forbidden to trap it) and one that has not rebelled (totally permitted to trap it).

[30] The mishna shabbat 106b states that if there is a deer inside of a house and the door is open, and one person sits in front of the entrance to block it, they have violated tzad. If a second person sits behind them, they haven't done anything. If the first person then gets up and leaves, the second person may remain, since he isn't currently doing any action (i.e. we don't make him get up, even though right now he's the one keeping the deer in the house). The tosfot yom tov on this mishna explains that it must be that when the first guy got up, he walked into the house, because if he were to go towards the outside, the second person would have to get up to make room to enable him to pass, and then it would indeed be prohibited for the second guy to sit back down, since at that point he would be actively entrapping the deer in the house. However, the Magen Avraham 316:11 argues and suggests that it should even be permitted for the second guy to stand up and enable the first guy to leave, and then to sit back down and block the entrance. Why is this not tzad? The Magen Avraham seemingly understands that since the animal is already trapped inside the house, the fact that for a brief moment, the entrance became unblocked doesn't give the animal the status of "untrapped". It is still considered "trapped", and so there is no problem for the second guy to re-block the entrance.

[31] The Mishna Brurah 316:25 paskens like the tosfot yom tov against the Magen Avraham, to now allow the re-blocking the entrance after it was left exposed. The Biur Halacha (316:6 s.v. v'halach) explains that the majority of achronim reject the Magen Avraham, and that's why he paskenned like the Tosfot yom tov.

[32] The Biur Halacha (316:6 s.v. v'halach) states that one may rely upon the Magen Avraham if the trapping in question is only rabbinic anyway for a different reason, such as if the house is really big (so it is not considered "one lunge"), or if the animal is domesticated such that it would come back at night on its own (even though we are strict like the Rama in 316:12 to prohibit trapping domesticated animals, in contrast to the Shulchan Aruch who permits it, we can rely upon the Magen Avraham in such an instance).

[33] Ach Tov VaHessed, Year 5783, Page 123

[34] The Tur siman 316 cites from the Ba'al Hatruma that one may not close a chest that has flies in it, since it is rabbinically forbidden to trap flies on shabbat (they are not a species that is typically trapped), and this is a psik reisha that they will be trapped. The Tur himself disagrees for two reasons. (1) the flies aren't really considered trapped in the box, since the second you open the box they will fly away out of your grasp. (2) you don't have kavana (lit: intent) to trap the flies, but rather just to close the box. It is unclear what exactly the Tur means by this last argument. Is he saying that there is no problem of psik reisha by an isur drabanan? Perhaps. This is indeed the position of the Terumat Hadeshen (siman 64, cited in Magen Avraham 314:5). The Magen Avraham himself argues and holds that a psik reisha on an isur drabanan is also asur. The Beit Yosef and the Bach both recommend being strict like the ba'al hatruma against the Tur, and not to close the chest if there are insects inside that will inevitably be trapped.
However, the Rama 316:3 cites this halacha in an interesting way. He states that one may not close a SMALL box that has flies in it (seemingly the shita of the ba'al hatruma), but that others are lenient and permit it (i.e. the Tur). Seemingly, the Rama understood that even the ba'al hatruma would allow one to close a BIG box. The Mishna Brurah 316:15 explains that a big box is a double drabanan (flies aren't typically trapped, and the area is bigger than "a single lunge"), so we can be lenient for a psik reish d'lo nicha lei (one has no interest in trapping the fly) on a double drabanan.

[42] However, the Rama 316:3 cites this halacha in an interesting way. He states that one may not close a SMALL box that has flies in it (seemingly the shita of the ba'al hatruma), but that others are lenient and permit it (i.e. the Tur). Seemingly, the Rama understood that even the ba'al hatruma would allow one to close a BIG box. The Mishna Brurah 316:15 explains that a big box is a double drabanan (flies aren't typically trapped, and the area is bigger than "a single lunge"), so we can be lenient for a psik reish d'lo nicha lei (one has no interest in trapping the fly) on a double drabanan.

[35] Taz 316:3. Mishna Brurah 316:16. The reason is that this is a safek psik reisha on an isur drabanan (flies aren't typically trapped), so we can be lenient.

[36] Generally speaking, if one performs an action on shabbat that may lead to undesired melacha but might not, that action is deemed a davar she'eino mitkavein and is permitted on shabbat. For example, one may drag a bench on the ground even though there is a chance that it will create a furrow, since one is not interested in the furrow, and because the furrow won't certainly be made (i.e. it's not a psik reisha). See Shulchan Aruch 337:1. In theory, one might think that this case should be treated exactly the same. I just want to close the drawer, and am not interested in trapping the fly. The melacha of trapping may or may not occur, depending on if there really is a fly in the drawer or not. Why should this be different than a regular davar she'eino mitkavein?

[37] Taz 316:3

[38] Biur Halacha 316:3 s.v. v'lachein, citing Chiddushei Rebbe Akiva Eiger YD:87:6. He explains that one can distinguish between a safek about the future vs. a safek about the past. Only a safek about the future (whether this action will cause a hole or not) is considered a davar she'eino mitkavein, but not a safek about the past (are there currently flies in this box or not).

[39] See Biur Halacha 316:3 s.v. v'lachein, who makes this point.

[40] Rama 316:3 and Mishna Brurah 316:15. See previous note.

[41] The mishna eduyot 2:5 says that if one traps a snake for the purpose of using it in a healing potion, then one has violated tzad, but if one merely wants to prevent it from biting him, then one is patur. Shmuel (gemara shabbat 107a) explains that this is one of the rare exceptions in which "patur" really means that it is totally permitted, and not rabbinically forbidden. Why should trapping the snake for this reason be permitted?
One approach is to say that if one isn't interested in the snake for its own sake, but rather just to get rid of it, then this is a melacha she'eina tzricha l'gufa. We pasken like Rebbe Shimon that this is only rabbinically forbidden in general. Here, since there is potential human suffering at risk, chazal were lenient and allowed one to trap the snake. Tosfot (shabbat 3a s.v. hatzad nachash) explains like this.

However, the fascinating thing as that the Rambam himself paskens like Rebbe Yehudah with respect to melacha she'eina tzricha l'gufa (see hilchot shabbat 1:8), and yet he still cites the leniency to trap the snake to prevent it from biting you (hilchot shabbat 10:25). Furthermore, the Rambam there states explicitly that the type of snake he is referring to is one which is non-lethal, so there's no concern of pikuach nefesh here. What's the rationale of the Rambam? Shouldn't this be biblically forbidden? There are a few approaches to answer this question.

(1) The Ramban (shabbat 42a s.v. mechabin) cites from the Behag that perhaps a damage that might occur to the public is viewed as if it is pikuach nefesh, even though it isn't ("היזק של רבים כסכנת נפשות חשיב ליה שמואל").

(2) The Aruch Hashulchan 316:19 suggests that since the whole point of trapping is to bring the animal into your own domain, so when you trap an animal in order to remove it from your domain (e.g. you want the snake as far away from you as possible so that it doesn't damage you), this is not merely a melacha she'eina tzricha l'gufa, but rather it just isn't the melacha of tzad at all.

(3) Maggid Mishna (hilchot shabbat 10:17) understands that the Rambam only permitted trapping the snake in a weird way ("shinuy") that would normally only be rabbinically prohibited. He has a diyuk from the language of the Rambam himself (in hilchot shabbat 10:25), who goes out of his way to tell you how you may trap the snake to prevent it from biting you, seemingly indicating that only these limited methods are allowed.

(4) The Chemed Moshe (cited in Biur halacha 316:7 s.v. nechashim) thinks that the Rambam understood that snakes are considered a species not typically trapped (ein b'mino nitzod), such that there would only ever be an isur drabanan to trap them. The Biur Halacha himself objects to this approach.

(5) Rav Chaim Brisker (hilchot shabbat 10:17) thinks that the Rambam paskens like the position of the Aruch that a psik reish d'lo nicha lei (one performs an action which inevitably results in melacha, but one is disinterested in that melacha) is totally permitted [this is not the accepted position l'halacha, as we hold that such an action is still rabbinically forbidden]. Here, since you are just trying to prevent the snake from biting you, the trapping that results is an undesired consequence, and hence constitutes a psik reisha d'lo nicha lei.

[50] One approach is to say that if one isn't interested in the snake for its own sake, but rather just to get rid of it, then this is a melacha she'eina tzricha l'gufa. We pasken like Rebbe Shimon that this is only rabbinically forbidden in general. Here, since there is potential human suffering at risk, chazal were lenient and allowed one to trap the snake. Tosfot (shabbat 3a s.v. hatzad nachash) explains like this.

[51] However, the fascinating thing as that the Rambam himself paskens like Rebbe Yehudah with respect to melacha she'eina tzricha l'gufa (see hilchot shabbat 1:8), and yet he still cites the leniency to trap the snake to prevent it from biting you (hilchot shabbat 10:25). Furthermore, the Rambam there states explicitly that the type of snake he is referring to is one which is non-lethal, so there's no concern of pikuach nefesh here. What's the rationale of the Rambam? Shouldn't this be biblically forbidden? There are a few approaches to answer this question.

[52] (1) The Ramban (shabbat 42a s.v. mechabin) cites from the Behag that perhaps a damage that might occur to the public is viewed as if it is pikuach nefesh, even though it isn't ("היזק של רבים כסכנת נפשות חשיב ליה שמואל").

[53] (2) The Aruch Hashulchan 316:19 suggests that since the whole point of trapping is to bring the animal into your own domain, so when you trap an animal in order to remove it from your domain (e.g. you want the snake as far away from you as possible so that it doesn't damage you), this is not merely a melacha she'eina tzricha l'gufa, but rather it just isn't the melacha of tzad at all.

[54] (3) Maggid Mishna (hilchot shabbat 10:17) understands that the Rambam only permitted trapping the snake in a weird way ("shinuy") that would normally only be rabbinically prohibited. He has a diyuk from the language of the Rambam himself (in hilchot shabbat 10:25), who goes out of his way to tell you how you may trap the snake to prevent it from biting you, seemingly indicating that only these limited methods are allowed.

[55] (4) The Chemed Moshe (cited in Biur halacha 316:7 s.v. nechashim) thinks that the Rambam understood that snakes are considered a species not typically trapped (ein b'mino nitzod), such that there would only ever be an isur drabanan to trap them. The Biur Halacha himself objects to this approach.

[56] (5) Rav Chaim Brisker (hilchot shabbat 10:17) thinks that the Rambam paskens like the position of the Aruch that a psik reish d'lo nicha lei (one performs an action which inevitably results in melacha, but one is disinterested in that melacha) is totally permitted [this is not the accepted position l'halacha, as we hold that such an action is still rabbinically forbidden]. Here, since you are just trying to prevent the snake from biting you, the trapping that results is an undesired consequence, and hence constitutes a psik reisha d'lo nicha lei.

[42] The gemara shabbat 107b cites a whether it is forbidden to trap a פרעוש (mosquito) biblically, or only rabbinically. The debate turns on whether one is only obligated for trapping a creature whose species is typically trapped (people do not typically trap mosquitos to use them for anything). However, tosfot s.v. hatzad point out that even though we pasken like Rebbe Yehoshua (that it's rabbinically forbidden to trap them), if they are biting you, it is permitted to grab it and throw it off, even though this violates both muktzeh and tzad (rabbinically). There is a debate amongst the poskim whether tosfot was only permitting trapping the mosquito if it was actively engaged in biting, or even if it was in a place on your clothing such that it might come to start biting. There are 4 positions on this question, in order of lenient to strict:
(1) The Taz 316:8 thinks even if it is on the outside of one's garment, it is permitted to trap it, as long as this garment is directly on the skin (as opposed to a jacket).

(2) The beit yosef is medayek in the Ran (38b b'dapei harif) that it's permitted only if it is on the inside of one's garment, since now there is a real concern that it might bite.

(3) The Tur seems to hold that one may only pluck off the mosquito if it is actually on the skin.

(4) The Rokeach (cited in shaar hatziyon 316:63) holds that it is only permitted if it is actually biting, since only then is it actually causing pain, and we would allow one to violate the isur drabanan of trapping it in order to remove the pain. This also seems to be the position of the Gra (as understood by Mishna Brurah 316:37).

l'halacha, the Mishna Brurah 316:37 cites numerous shitot, and concludes in shaar hatziyon 316:63 that it is proper to be strict and only trap it if it is actually biting. However, he also states that one shouldn't object to those who are lenient.

[58] (1) The Taz 316:8 thinks even if it is on the outside of one's garment, it is permitted to trap it, as long as this garment is directly on the skin (as opposed to a jacket).

[59] (2) The beit yosef is medayek in the Ran (38b b'dapei harif) that it's permitted only if it is on the inside of one's garment, since now there is a real concern that it might bite.

[60] (3) The Tur seems to hold that one may only pluck off the mosquito if it is actually on the skin.

[61] (4) The Rokeach (cited in shaar hatziyon 316:63) holds that it is only permitted if it is actually biting, since only then is it actually causing pain, and we would allow one to violate the isur drabanan of trapping it in order to remove the pain. This also seems to be the position of the Gra (as understood by Mishna Brurah 316:37).

[62] 'halacha, the Mishna Brurah 316:37 cites numerous shitot, and concludes in shaar hatziyon 316:63 that it is proper to be strict and only trap it if it is actually biting. However, he also states that one shouldn't object to those who are lenient.

[43] The Dirshu Mishna Brurah (siman 316 footnote 82) cites from Rav Shlomo Zalmen that a wasp is treated like a פרעוש (mosquito). Dirshu (siman 316 footnote 64) cites this from the Alter Rebbe as well.

[44] Dirshu (siman 316 footnote 64) cites from Rav Nissim Karelitz that he viewed even bees (which are less painful than wasps) as being akin to snakes / scorpions, and thus you would be allowed to trap it even if not being chased.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

[13]

[14]

[15]

[16]

[17]

[18]

[19]

[20]

[21]

[22]

[23]

[24]

[25]

[26]

[27]

[28]

[29]

[30]

[31]

[32]

[33]

[34]

[35]

[36]

[37]

[38]

[39]

[40]

[41]

[42]

[43]

[44]

Anonymous

Search

Tzad

Namespaces

More

Page actions

Contents

Definition

Setting a Trap on Shabbat

Unique Nature of Tzad

How Enclosed is Considered "Trapped"?

Which Animals Are Included?

Heter of the Rashba

Domesticated Animals / Pets

Safek Psik Reisha

Harmful Creatures

Related Pages

Links

Sources

Navigation

Halachic Topics

Categories

Wiki tools

Wiki tools

Anonymous

Search

Tzad

Definition

Setting a Trap on Shabbat

Unique Nature of Tzad

How Enclosed is Considered "Trapped"?

Which Animals Are Included?

Heter of the Rashba

Domesticated Animals / Pets

Safek Psik Reisha

Harmful Creatures

Related Pages

Links

Sources

Navigation

Wiki tools

Page tools

Categories