Trapping Animals Indoors

Shabbat (13:7) | Yisrael Bankier | 2 years ago

The Mishnah (13:7) teaches that one can be liable for trapping an animal in their house by simple sitting and blocking the entrance to the house. The Mishnah also teaches that if someone was already sitting at the entrance and then another person sat next to him, if the first person left, leaving the second person now blocking the entrance, the second person would not be liable.

The Bartenura explains that when the second person sat at the entrance, the animal was already trapped in the house by the first person. When the first person left, the second person has not done any act of trapping, since the animal was already trapped. Instead, the second person is now simply preventing the animal from escaping.

The Mishnah explains that this case is similar to the case where one locked the door to their house, in which an animal was trapped inside. The Ran explains that, since the door was already closed, the animal was already trapped inside the house. One might have thought that locking the door is an act of trapping because it prevents someone from opening the doors and freeing the animal. The Mishnah however teaches that locking the door is simply an added level of protection for guarding an already trapped animal. Alternatively, the Ran adds that the Mishnah is teaching that if the animal was tied up when the door was shut and then the animal released, we do not obligate the person to open the door. This is because when the door was shut, it was permitted to do so. The halacha appears to follow the *Ran'*s understanding. See Mishnah Berurah (316:23).

The Ran however cites the Rashba who, based on the Yerushalmi, explains that one is allowed to close the door to his house to secure his house, even if there is a deer inside and one will intentionally be trapping it in the processes¹. It would only be prohibited to shut the door if his sole intention was to trap the deer.

The Ran however finds this explanation difficult. Just because one needs to secure their house, how does that justify the melacha of trapping the deer? The Ran reasons that the intention of the Yerushalmi was that if one closed their house without any consideration or knowledge of a deer inside, and then after discovers that it was trapped inside, he is not obligated to open the door to free the deer. This is indeed how the Tifferet Yisrael explains the Mishnah.

The Chazon Yechezkel (Tosefta 13:6) however also addresses the Rashba and notes the difficulty with his explanation. It would seem that according to the Rashba, even though the deer will definitely be trapped -- it is a pesik reisha -- the Rashba nonetheless permits closing the door!

The Chazon Yechezkel suggests that according to the Yerushalmi this case is different. Closing the door of the house is not a melacha per se. It is only if there happens to be a living create inside the house, and closing the door traps it there, that the act becomes defined as a melacha. To be clear, unlike threshing or harvesting, the act of closing a door alone is not a melacha. The context needs to define it as such in order for it to be prohibited. Consequently, when one intends to close the door to secure the house, despite the animal being trapped inside, the act is not defined as a melecha. The act is associated with securing the house and the animal simply trapped by the by. Consequently, this cases is different, and cannot be compared to a normal case of a pesik reisha.

¹ The Mishnah Berurah (Shaarei Tzion 316:33) understands the according to the Rashba the prime intention would still need to be for securing the house.

Download