Daf 105

1) If someone weaves on Shabbos, R' Eliezer holds that you're Chayiv if you weave three threads to start off a garment, and one thread if you're adding onto already woven material. The Rabanan hold that you're only Chayiv if you weave two of them no matter where you're up to.

2) There are two versions to explain R' Eliezer's need for weaving three threads in the beginning. The first version held that it's only by thin threads since it's not too noticeable with less threads, but you're Chayiv for weaving two thick threads. The second version is the opposite. You only need three threads by thick threads that don't weave tightly, so you need three to hold together. However, you're Chayiv for weaving two thin threads since they're tight.

3) [Tosfos points out that the Rabanan agree you're Chayiv for weaving one thread when it finishes the garment, as we said in the last Perek.]

4) The case where you need to rip so you can sew it up is if the original weaving formed a pocket, then you'll need to rip it to keep it straight.

5) If you rip clothing over a dead person that you don't have any obligation to rip on, you're exempt since it ruins the clothing (without having any upside for ripping). If you rip your clothes on someone who died that you're obligated to rip for; [Rashi says that it's a Melacha Shein Tzricha L'gufo and it depends on the argument between R' Yehuda and R' Shimon if you're Chayiv. Tosfos says that you're even Chayiv according to R' Shimon, since you need to rip it, it's Tzaruch L'gufo. Although R' Shimon doesn't hold that a need to do a Mitzva is considered a need to make a Melacha to be Tzricha L'gufo; but here, the rip is necessary for the clothing since it makes it wearable during the mourning period. Alternatively, we only say that a need for the Mitzvah is not considered needed L'gufo if the Mitzva comes after the Melacha, but here the Melacha happens simultaneously with the Mitzvah.] Still, even if you're Chayiv, you're Yoitza your obligation to rip for the dead.

6) If you rip clothing in your anger, you're exempt since it ruins (and doesn't fix anything) since it ruins your character. However, if you rip in order to install fear on your household (to keep them in line), it's a Melacha Shein Tzricha L'gufo and it depends on the argument between R' Yehuda and R' Shimon.

7) There is an obligation to rip one's clothing when a Talmid Chachum dies [Tosfos: even if he was not your Rebbi, as it says in Moed Katon. Although Rava ripped especially for a Chachum because he explained to him a Mishna, it doesn't mean that he wouldn't rip for any Chachum, but he ripped special for this Chachum like he would do on a Rebbi, that he will never completely sew it up.] You also need to rip for a decent man, or if you were there when he died [Tosfos: even if he wasn't a decent man] since it's like seeing a Sefer Torah burning.

Daf 106

8) If the Melachos of burning and wounding ruins an item; R' Yochanan holds he's exempt and R' Avohu holds he's Chayiv. [Rashi learns the Sugya as follows: there seems to be a contradiction in the Mishnayos. One Mishna says that if one burns down someone else's haystack, or if he wounds someone, he's exempt from paying since he's Chayiv for Shabbos, and Beis Din can only give the harsher punishment of the death penalty for Shabbos, and they can't impose him to pay damages. This seems that he's Chayiv for Shabbos despite that it's ruining and not fixing anything. However, we have a Mishna that says that all who ruin are exempt for Shabbos. Therefore, R' Avohu held like R' Shimon that a Melacha Shein Tzricha L'gufo is exempt. Therefore, in order for a Melacha not to be ruining, it needs to be a fix to the item that you did the Melacha to. Since all burnings ruin the haystack and and woundings ruin the person you wounded, we're forced to say that by definition that when the Torah forbids burning and wounding (i.e., when it needs a Pasuk to allow a Mila on Shabbos, and it also has a Pasuk to say that it's forbidden to burn an adulterous Kohain's daughter on Shabbos), the Torah is saying that you're Chayiv for ruining by these Melachos. The Mishna that says that all ruiners are exempt must have been authored by R' Yehuda. R' Yochanan holds like R' Yehuda, so he doesn't hold that the fix has to be to the item you're doing the Melacha to, but even if it improve something else. Therefore, the Mishna that says that you're Chayiv on Shabbos for burning a haystack refers to a case where you need ash, and wounding someone refers to a case where he needs the blood to feed to his dog.

However, Tosfos asks; if so, why was R' Yochanan so critical of R' Avohu's explanation if he held like a Tanna? Rather Tosfos explains that both R' Yochanan and R' Avohu argue according to R' Shimon. R' Avohu only considers it to be a fix if it's a real proper need, and a need to do a Mitzvah or to produce ash or blood for your dog is not enough to be considered a proper fix. Therefore, from the very fact that the Torah needed to permit Mila, or to forbid burning a Kohain's daughter, which are not real fixings, tells us that the Torah doesn't required fixing for these Melachos. However, R' Yochanan holds that they're all considered enough of a fixing, both for a Mitzvah, and to have ash or to have blood for your dog. Therefore, there is no proof from the Pasuk that permits Mila, or that forbids burning a Kohain's daughter, that you're Chayiv if you ruined anything completely. However, R' Yehuda held that for a Mitzvah is enough of a good fix to be Chayiv, but not for a lousy reason like if you need ash, or blood to feed a dog, thus he exempts if you burn for ashes and wound to get blood. According to this, the argument between R' Shimon and R' Yehuda has nothing to do with Melacha Shein Tzricha L'gufo, but the rabbis have a tradition that they argue here.

Although we see that the Gemara in Avoda Zara considers Shchita as ruining the animal, you're still Chayiv (even to R' Yehuda who needs a strong fixing for wounding) since that's only a Halacha to allow Shechting with an knife that was used in the service of idols since the sum total of its results is that the animal is worth less, so you didn't gain from the Shchita. However, he agrees that it's enough of a fixing for Shabbos; Mahrsha- since it's normal to Shecht, and it's not similar to burning for ash or wounding for blood which is abnormal. However, R' Tam answers that they only exempt by burning for ash and wounding for the blood where the ruining comes before the fixing, since the ash is a result of the burning, and blood is a result of the wounding. However, the Shechita and the pleasure of removing it from being Eiver Min Hachai come simultaneously, so R' Yehuda would agree that it's Chayiv, like he's Chayiv for ripping clothing so that his household should fear him, since the fear come simultaneously with the ripping. Although everyone agrees that you're Chayiv for ripping to sew afterwards, or erasing to write in its place even though the fixing comes later, that's because it's a true improvement to the product.

Although the Gemara in Sanhedrin says that R' Shimon needs to have these Melachos to be Tzricha L'gufo to be Chayiv, the way it could be Tzricha L'gufo even if it completely ruined the item is if you thought that you can give the blood to a dog, or take the ash, but it turned out to be from items that are forbidden to have pleasure from. So, even though you didn't fix anything, since you can't partake any pleasure from it; you still intended to do the Melacha to partake pleasure.

Although we say that you're exempt for digging a hole when you only need the dirt since it's a Melacha Shein Tzricha L'gufo; we still consider wounding for the blood as Tzricha L'gufo, since the Melacha is removing the soul, and we know that the soul is in the blood, so you're removing the soul (i.e., the blood) because you need it. Also, it's Tzricha L'gufo for the burning, since you need the burning to produce ash. This is like you need the burning to produce heat to cook your food. This is not similar to getting dirt by digging, since the hole is made as an after thought and you're not having any pleasure from it.]

9) If you capture a wild animal in a cage; R' Yehuda holds that he's exempt, and he's not Chayiv until he brings it into a smaller enclosure, like a house. However, the Rabanan and R' Shimon b. Gamliel say that he's Chayiv if he captures it in a cage.

10) If you want to Shecht on Yom Tov a captured animal, you may if he's been captured in a smaller cage since he doesn't need any more capturing, but you can't if he's in a larger cage where you'll still need to capture him before you can get him. A smaller cage is defined by being able to grab the animal in one sprint. Alternatively, if the walls are close enough together that the shade of one wall reaches the other. [Tosfos explains: we must say that they had a universal height to the walls, or else such a Shiur is meaningless, since the shade may fall on the other wall if it had higher walls and not with lower walls, even though they're the same width.] Alternatively, if the cage doesn't have crannies that the animal can find refuge there.

11) You may take captured birds from a covered cage, but only if the bird feels subservient there.

12) If they're in a place that you may take them from to eat on Yom Tov, you may also serve them food, but you can't if there in a place where you can't take them. [Rashi says the reason why you can't: since they're Muktza, and you can't bother yourself on Shabbos to take care of Muktza. Tosfos asks: but we see that you can feed chickens and geese on Shabbos although they're Muktza. Rather, Tosfos explains: if it's considered captured from the Torah, it's considered as your animal which you're obligated to feed. However, if it's not captured, it's not upon you to feed, and you can't bother on Shabos to feed animals that it's not your business to feed.]

13) If you capture a blind or sleeping deer, you're Chayiv (and we don't consider it already trapped because of its situation) since it can run away when it feels the hands grabbing it. However, you're exempt if you trap an elderly or sick animal (i.e., from exertion, that made it extremely tired) since they're considered trapped in themselves. However, if it's only sick with a fever, you're Chayiv.

14) If you capture an animal that its species are not normally captured; R' Meir holds you're Chayiv and the Rabanan say you're exempt.

15) When the dew comes down that makes grasshoppers temporarily blind, you're exempt if you capture them (since they're considered trapped already). The same applies when they're coming in a swarm since you can just pick up you're hands and grab some, they're considered already trapped.

16) If one person traps an animal, he's Chayiv. If two trap one together, they're exempt. If it needed both of them to trap it; the Chachumim say they're Chayiv and R' Shimon holds they're exempt.

17) If you capture a lion, you're exempt unless you trap it into its cage (or else it's not secured enough to be considered trapped).

Daf 107

18) If an animal is already trapped, you can add an extra level of guarding it, even if you'll undo the original entrapment afterwards (and is now only guarded by what you made on Shabbos). Therefore, if a bird gets caught under your coat, you can guard it until after Shabbos and you don't need to open space to allow it to escape.

19) It's permitted to pop a pimple, remove a thorn and capture a snake or scorpion on Shabbos so that they don't bite you. [Tosfos explains: they permit a Melacha Shein Tzricha L'gufo to save from pain. Even according to R' Yehuda, if it's not inevitable, like when it's possible that no blood will come out when you take out the thorn, since it's regularly only rabbinically forbidden, it's permitted here.]