SHABBOS 121 (13 Tamuz) - Today's Dafyomi study is dedicated to the blessed memory of U.S. Army Staff Sgt. Seymour Ira Gottlieb (Yitzchak Shimon ben Chaim Shlomo Yosef ha'Levi, Z"L), who died in World War II on the 13th of Tamuz 5704 in the battle of St. Lo, France, fighting the Nazis to save his Jewish brethren in Europe.

QUESTION: The Mishnah states that if a Nochri tries to extinguish a fire in a Jewish house on Shabbos, we do not stop him, since we are not commanded to ensure that a Nochri desists from Melachah on Shabbos. If a Jewish child, however, tries to extinguish the fire, we do stop him, since we are commanded to ensure that a child desists from Melachah on Shabbos. The Gemara points out that it is evident from the Mishnah that if a child is eating Neveilos, Beis Din is obligated to stop him. The Gemara rejects this inference and asserts that Beis Din is not required to stop a child from eating Neveilos. The case of the house on fire is different, because the child wants to extinguish the fire for his father, and therefore we must stop him. In contrast, when he eats Neveilos, he eats for his own enjoyment.
How can the Gemara say that we are not required to stop a child from eating a forbidden food? We know that there is a Mitzvah of Chinuch that obligates us to teach the child to follow the ways of the Torah!
(a) The RAMBAM (Hilchos Ma'achalos Asuros 17:28) explains that the Mitzvah of Chinuch applies only to the father of the child. His father indeed is required to stop him from eating something forbidden. No one else, though, is required to stop him.
(b) The RASHBA in Yevamos (114a) and TOSFOS here (DH Shema Mina) explain that the Gemara refers only to a child who has not yet reached the age of Chinuch. A child who has reached the age of Chinuch must be stopped from eating forbidden food.
(c) The Rashba adds that one's obligation of Chinuch of a child requires that he train the child to do actions. One is not required to enjoin the child to stop doing actions.
The Rashba also writes that one is permitted to feed a child an item which is prohibited mid'Rabanan in order to satisfy the needs of the child (and not to serve the one feeding the child).
HALACHAH: The SHULCHAN ARUCH (OC 343) cites the Rambam's opinion that only the father is commanded to stop the child from sinning. The REMA cites both the opinions of the Rambam (a) and Tosfos (b), with the Rambam's opinion as a "Yesh Omrim." (See also Insights to Yevamos 114a.)


OPINIONS: The Gemara teaches that one is permitted to kill Mazikin (insects or animals that bite and harm people) on Shabbos even if they are not pursuing a potential victim. Which Mazikin may one kill on Shabbos?
(a) According to RASHI (DH v'Divrei ha'Kol), one is permitted to kill only the five very dangerous Mazikin mentioned in the Beraisa, because those Mazikin pose a threat to human life. Since Sakanas Nefashos is involved, one may kill them even if they are not running after someone, because they might come to harm someone later. This is also the opinion of the RIF, ROSH, and others.
(b) TOSFOS (DH b'Ratzin), the BEHAG, and other Rishonim maintain that one is permitted to kill all types of Mazikin on Shabbos, even if they are not pursuing someone. Why may one kill commonplace Mazikin if they are not pursuing someone? The RASHBA explains that since they commonly cause harm ("Hezekan Matzuy"), the Rabanan permitted killing them. The ROSH adds that these animals pose a significant threat to human welfare, and therefore one may kill them, even though the threat and danger that they pose is not as great as the danger posed by the five Mazikin listed in the Beraisa.
Although one is permitted to kill certain animals even when they are not chasing a person (according to Rashi, the five mentioned in the Beraisa, and according to Tosfos, all Mazikin), the Rishonim dispute whether the Chachamim are pleased with someone who kills them on Shabbos ("Ru'ach Chasidim Nochah Hemeinu"). Therefore, TOSFOS concludes that one should be stringent and not kill Mazikin on Shabbos when no there is no threat to a person's life. The RAMBAM, however, is lenient and rules that one is permitted to kill them.
HALACHAH: The SHULCHAN ARUCH (OC 316:10) follows the ruling of Tosfos, that one should not kill Mazikin that are not pursuing a person (and that do not pose an immediate threat to a person's life).
The above discussion involves only killing Mazikin deliberately, with obvious intent. The Gemara concludes that everyone agrees that one is permitted to trample the Mazikin "l'Fi Tumo," not deliberately, and to kill them while one walks innocently by. (See following Insight for reasons why one is permitted to kill them in this manner.)
One is also permitted to prevent any animal from harming a person by trapping it without killing it. The Gemara (107a) states that one may catch and confine a snake or other type of Mazik in order to prevent it from harming someone. The Gemara here prohibits only killing the Mazik.
OPINIONS: Why is one permitted to kill on Shabbos even Mazikin that do not pose an immediate danger by stepping on them "l'Fi Tumo"? (See previous Insight.)
(a) RASHI (DH Dilma l'Fi Tumo) writes that one is permitted to kill Mazikin "l'Fi Tumo" because doing so is only a Davar she'Eino Miskaven, since the person is walking along normally and has no intention to kill the creature. Even Rebbi Yehudah, who normally maintains that a Davar she'Eino Miskaven is forbidden mid'Rabanan, agrees that one is permitted to kill these Mazikin through an act of Davar she'Eino Miskaven.
(b) The RASHBA disagrees with Rashi. According to the Rashba, the Gemara permits one to kill the creatures in a deliberate manner as well, as long as he does not make it evident to all that he is deliberately trying to kill something on Shabbos (i.e., he appears to be simply taking a step). The Rabanan permit one to kill with a Shinuy of this sort, because these animals frequently inflict harm.
The Rashba challenges Rashi's explanation (that "l'Fi Tumo" means that one is walking along and just happens to step on the creature unintentionally) from the Gemara later in which Aba bar Marta told the servants of the Reish Galusa that they may step on spittle lying in the way on Shabbos "l'Fi Tumo." Obviously, they knew that the spittle was there, and yet the Gemara calls this "l'Fi Tumo"! (According to the Rashba's explanation, though, this Gemara is easily understood. One may indeed intentionally trample a Mazik, or spittle, as long as he makes it look like it was not his intention to do so.)
It could be that according to Rashi, the Gemara means that one may intend to step on the spittle, but he may not intend to smooth the road. That is, one is permitted to knowingly step on spittle when one does not intend (Eino Miskaven) to smooth the road, even though it is possible that he indeed will end up smoothing the road. This is similar to one who kills Mazikin "l'Fi Tumo," where one intends to walk on his way, but not to transgress the prohibition of killing creatures. (M. KORNFELD)