Observation: According to the conclusion in Sanhedrin (85a) that it is like R. Shimon, this is fine. We discuss even when he surely wounds. It is permitted because Einah Tzerichah l'Gufah.

Question: However, according to the question there "the Mishnah teaches a hand needle to remove a thorn. We should be concerned lest he wound!", here we do not properly resolve from there, for piercing an abscess Vadai makes an opening. Perhaps it is forbidden!

Answer (Ri): Even according to that Havah Amina there, [here] we properly resolve, for presumably it is like everyone, even like R. Yehudah;

Since R. Yehudah, who elsewhere forbids Davar she'Eino Miskaven, even if it is not a Pesik Reishei, permits here due to bodily pain, also according to R. Shimon, regarding piercing an abscess, which is Melachah she'Einah Tzerichah l'Gufah, it is permitted l'Chatchilah for the same reason (pain).

Explanation: The version in Rashi that [he is liable] for Netilas Neshamah is primary, like I explained above (75b, DH Ki).

Question: Why was there a greater need to teach here that one who traps for a need is liable? For all Chiyuvim of Shabbos, R. Shimon obligates only for a need!

Answer (Ri): The Tana taught this here to teach that for other vermin, which have no skin, he must intend for some need. Stam, they are not for a need;

However, the eight Sheratzim of the Reisha, which have skin, Stam, they are trapped for the need of their skin. Therefore he taught trapping them together with wounding, which is also liable due to the skin.

Explanation #1 (Rashi): He is exempt because people do not trap from its species.

Rebuttal: The one who exempts when people do not trap from its species, he exempts even for a need!

Explanation #2: Rather, even if people trap from its species, he is exempt, because it is Melachah she'Einah Tzerichah l'Gufah.

Remark: R. Tam erased [because people do not trap from its species] from Perushim [of Rashi].

Question (Ri): We find that Rabanan argue with R. Yochanan only regarding Tum'ah, but regarding Shabbos, perhaps they agree to him!

Source: The skin of a tender calf is like meat regarding Tum'ah, and one who wounds it on Shabbos is liable! The same applies to skin of a bird. Presumably, it is like meat, for it is soft. Our Mishnah says that a Chayah or bird in his Reshus, one who wounds it is liable!

Answer: Skin of a tender calf, or of a bird, even though it is considered skin, it is like meat regarding Tum'ah, because it is soft and proper to eat;

However, the skin of the eight Sheratzim, Shmuel holds that Rabanan consider it like meat, because they follow texture (whether or not the skin feels harder than the flesh), like it says in Chulin (122b), and not due to softness, for it is not so soft.

Since they do not have real skin, one who wounds them is exempt, like for other vermin.

Question: We conclude in Chulin (122b) that they argue about texture, and Rashi explained there that Rabanan do not expound ha'Temei'im!

Answer: Here, Rav holds like he taught elsewhere. He taught [also] a mole (its skin is Tamei like the flesh), and he holds that it does not depend on the texture.

Question: In any case, one cannot explain like Rashi explained there. Why did it need to say that Rav is considered a Tana, and he argues [with the Mishnah and includes a mole]? You are forced to say that the Beraisa that expounds "ha'Teme'im" is like Rav!

Explanation: It seems that also Rabanan of the Mishnah there expound ha'Teme'im, but they do not hold that "l'Minehu" interrupts. It says ha'Teme'im to include, and "Eleh" to exclude;

We establish the inclusion for the four that have no texture (the skin does not feel harder than the flesh) - an Anakah (a porcupine, hedgehog or beaver?), praying mantis, lizard, and a slug.

Rav includes everything written after l'Minehu, and also a mole is included.

Question: We say below "who is the first Tana? It is R. Yehudah, who follows the texture." Also Rabanan follow the texture, and even so they expound ha'Teme'im. We can say the same about R. Yehudah;

If so, we can say also that we find that R. Yehudah argues only about Tum'ah, for it says ha'Teme'im, but regarding Shabbos, he agrees!

Explanation: This is the conclusion of the question from Abaye. Surely, according to Abaye, they argue about Shabbos;

However, according to how Rava and Rav Ada explain, they do not argue at all about Shabbos.

Question: Since Abaye's answer is rejected, how do we ask from it?! (Maharshal - the Makshan held like Abaye. The Gemara answers that Rava already rejected Abaye...)

Inference: He is exempt, but it is forbidden.

Pesak (Ri, citing Rav Pores): Even so, if it bites a person, he may take it and cast it off him. Due to pain, it is permitted;

However, if it is on a person in a way that he is not afraid lest it bite him, e.g. on the outside of his coat, one may not take it. However, he may cast it off himself.

Rejection #1: This text is errant. R. Eliezer obligates even for a louse. He mentioned a Pir'osh (flea) for the Chidush of R. Yehoshua, who exempts even for a flea.

Rejection #2: The answer that he answers connotes that the text does not say so.

Support: Also R. Tam erased this from his text.

Explanation: We discuss when it is already trapped in the water, since he does not obligate [for trapping, only for Netilas Neshamah, which is] only after the size of a Sela dries.