String Ratios Discussed:
Tags:
Main Text
הצד חלזון. למאן דמוקי לה בשפצעו חי אתי שפיר הא דנקט הצד חלזון דדרך לפוצעו מיד אחר צידה כל זמן שהוא חי וקמ״ל דאע״פ שפצעו חי לא מיחייב משום נטילת נשמה ואפילו למאן דמוקי לה כשפצעו מת קמ״ל דלא מיחייב בצידה שלו משום נטילת נשמה דאף על גב דאמרי׳ בפרק שמונה שרצים (לקמן דף קז׃) השולה דג מן הים כיון שיבש בו כו׳ הכא שמא חלזון דרכו לפרכס ולקרב מיתתו וצ״ע דבירושלמי משמע דצד חלזון לא מיחייב משום צידה׃
English Translation
“Ha-tzad ḥilazon — ‘one who traps the ḥilazon.’ According to the shita that sets up the case as when he wounded it while it was alive, it comes out gishmak why the Mishnah picked ‘one who traps the ḥilazon’—because the derech is to wound it right away after the tzidah as long as it’s still alive. And it’s coming to be mechadesh that even though he wounded it while alive, he’s not chayav for netilas neshama.
And even according to the shita that sets it up when he wounded it after it died, it’s coming to teach that he’s not chayav on the trapping on account of netilas neshama. Even though we say in Perek Shemona Sheratzim (later 107b) that ‘one who draws up a fish from the sea—once it dries [on it]…’ (there’s liability for netilas neshama), here maybe the ḥilazon’s derech is to thrash (pirchus) and bring its death closer. Still, tzarich iyun, because from the Yerushalmi it sounds like one who traps the ḥilazon is not chayav for tzad.”
English Footnotes
Why Tosafos is bothered by the Yerushalmi:
Tosafos is not saying that the Yerushalmi identifies the chilazon as the one-horned land animal. Rather, the Yerushalmi says that according to one opinion, trapping the chilazon is not a chiyuv of tzad at all; the only chiyuv is netilas neshamah. The Yerushalmi then brings the tachash/keresh, a separate one-horned animal, as the Mishkan source for the melachah of trapping. This is why Tosafos writes וצ״ע: the Bavli seems to assume that trapping the chilazon is a case of tzad, while the Yerushalmi seems to say that it is not.
