We begin a new topic: Maseches Eduyos, chapter two, mishnah 5. The mishnah opens: "Sheloshah devarim amru lifnei Rabbi Yishmael, ve'lo amar bahem lo issur ve'lo hetter, u'firshan Rabbi Yehoshua ben Masya" - three matters were brought before Rabbi Yishmael, and he stated regarding them neither a prohibition nor a permission, and Rabbi Yehoshua ben Masya explained them. Three cases were brought before Rabbi Yishmael, and he was asked to rule on them - forbidden or permitted, tamei or tahor - and he declined to decide them, while Rabbi Yehoshua ben Masya clarified them. What the three cases share is that the answer in each is not clear cut but depends on the details and on the intention of the one who acts, and for that reason Rabbi Yishmael refrained from entering into their fine points.
The first case - one who lances a boil on Shabbos:
This refers to someone who drains a boil on Shabbos, that is, he pierces the sore in order to release the pus from it. The question is whether this is permitted, and the issue at hand is the melachah of building: making a permanent opening, one that allows ongoing entry and exit through the new hole, is considered a full fledged melachah.
This distinction determines the law: if the person's intention is to make an opening that will remain open, so that the pus will drain out and fresh air will enter and heal the place - this is an opening that "brings in and takes out," and it is forbidden by Torah law. But if his entire intention is to puncture the boil merely so that the pus should come out, this is not a genuine opening on the Torah level, and although there is here an act that is rabbinically forbidden, in this case the Sages were lenient.
The reason is that when the whole purpose of the hole is to release the pus, this is a melachah she'einah tzerichah legufah, a melachah not needed for its own sake: the act is done intentionally, but not for the sake of the melachah itself. The person puncturing the boil has no interest whatsoever in the hole - he would be no less happy, and indeed happier, if the pus would disappear without any hole at all; the hole is nothing more than a necessary means of removing the fluid, since there is no other way to do it. The Tannaim disagree about this: Rabbi Yehudah forbids and Rabbi Shimon permits, and our mishnah follows Rabbi Shimon, that a melachah not needed for its own sake is permitted. Moreover, since the boil causes a person pain and discomfort, the Sages did not even impose the rabbinic prohibition in such a case.
A general rule first: throughout the laws of Shabbos, "patur" means exempt but forbidden - exempt from a korban, yet rabbinically forbidden. There are three exceptions to this rule in which patur means exempt and permitted, and two of them appear here in our mishnah. (The third exception, which is not mentioned in our mishnah, deals with one who sits in the doorway of a room and the trapping of a deer, and this is not the place for it.)
And this is the language of the mishnah:
"Ha'mefis mursa b'Shabbos, im la'asos lah peh - chayav" - one who lances a boil on Shabbos, if he does so in order to make it an opening, he is liable. If his intention is to make a permanent opening (a "mouth"), through which the pus will drain on an ongoing basis and fresh air will enter, such as where he inserted something to hold the opening open - he is liable to bring a chatas.
"Ve'im lehotzi mimenah leichah - patur" - and if it is in order to release the fluid from it, he is exempt. If his entire purpose is that the fluid inside should come out, this is a melachah not needed for its own sake, since he has no interest at all in the hole. And here "patur" means exempt and permitted, and this is one of the three cases in Shabbos where this ruling is stated.
The second case - one who traps a snake on Shabbos:
Trapping too is one of the thirty nine melachos, and it is forbidden by Torah law. However, the purpose of trapping is that the creature should come into a person's possession - for food, for its hide and the like. In trapping a snake, the person has no interest in the snake at all; all he wants is to confine it so that it should not cause harm. He would be delighted if the snake simply vanished on its own, and if it were to run away he would be twice as pleased. He confines it only so that it should not harm others.
We are speaking, of course, about a situation in which the snake is liable to cause harm and distress but not death. If it were a dangerous snake that endangers life, the entire calculation changes, and we enter a different subject altogether, that of pikuach nefesh. Here we are dealing with a snake that is liable to cause only disturbance, nuisance or pain, and the question is whether it is permitted to confine it on Shabbos even though trapping is forbidden.
To this the mishnah responds:
"Im bishvil shelo yishchenu - patur" - if his entire involvement with the snake is in order to confine it so that it will not bite anyone, and he has no interest in the snake itself, he is exempt for having trapped it. Here too, "exempt" exceptionally means exempt and permitted. By strict law this should have been forbidden rabbinically as a melachah she'einah tzerichah legufah (a labor not needed for its own purpose), even according to the lenient view of Rabbi Shimon, but because of people's distress the Sages permitted it.
"Ve'im lirfuah - chayav" - if he confines the snake because he wants it, for medicinal use or in order to extract its venom and the like, this is a labor needed for its own purpose, forbidden by Torah law, and he is liable to bring a chatas.
The third case - a sealed earthenware vessel:
This case is somewhat different and more involved, and it deals with earthenware vessels that contract tumah. We have already discussed this earlier in the tractate: an earthenware vessel becomes tamei through its inside, that is, through the airspace within it. And when it is closed and sealed from the outside - it is a 'tzamid pasil' (a tightly sealed vessel), whose interior has no exposure to the air of the tent - even if a corpse lies under that same roof, the vessel remains tahor. The question in our mishnah is not only whether this vessel actually became tamei, but whether it is capable of contracting tumah at all.
And although a sealed earthenware vessel does not become tamei through contact from the outside, and does not become tamei in the tent of a corpse, there are severe sources of tumah that convey tumah not only through direct contact but even through heiset (moving an object).
The difference between 'masa' and 'heiset':
Masa (carrying): bearing the weight of the source of tumah. For example, a neveilah - the carcass of an animal that died - conveys tumah through contact and also through carrying, such as one who carries an olive's volume of the flesh of a dead animal in his pack and becomes tamei by bearing its weight. In masa, the source of tumah is the thing being carried.
Heiset (shifting): the moving or carrying of an object by the source of tumah. In heiset, the source of tumah is the one doing the carrying and the moving.
It is worth noting that the mishnah uses the term "masa", and one must not confuse masa with heiset, for they are not the same thing.
There are four who convey tumah through heiset: a zav, a zavah, a niddah and a yoledes - those who have sources of tumah issuing from their bodies. They convey tumah not only through direct contact, but even by moving an object or bearing its weight. One could say that the heiset of a zav is like an exceptionally powerful contact: as though he touched every part of the object all at once. Therefore, an earthenware vessel that does not become tamei through contact from the outside, if a zav, zavah, niddah or yoledes moved it or carried it - it is as though they touched all of its sides and even its interior, and it becomes tamei.
So then, the case before us: a ball made of clay, formed on the potter's stones and fired in the kiln, and the plan is to split it in two like an egg, and the villagers use its two halves as simple bowls - serving bowls or a pot for cooked food. This is the 'lefas': spelled with an ayin it means rustic, and spelled with an alef it means sealed, and in any case the intent is one and the same - that closed ball. The question is: as long as it is sealed, does it contract tumah?
The mishnah's answer at the outset is that it depends: in the tent of a corpse it is tahor, since it is like a tightly sealed vessel, closed on all sides with its interior not exposed to the air of the tent; but if a zav, zavah, niddah or yoledes moved it or carried it, even though it has not yet been split and has no exposed interior, it is as though they touched all of it and even its inner part, and it becomes tamei.
And on this they disagreed:
Rabbi Elazar beRabbi Tzadok: even if a zav carried them before they were split, they remain tahor, since they have not yet become a vessel. The sealed bowl does not yet function as a bowl, and this is not a vessel whose manufacture has been completed. And the rule is that as long as a vessel's manufacture has not been completed, it does not contract tumah.
The Tanna Kamma, and this is the halachah in practice: as far as the villagers are concerned the vessel is considered virtually finished, since nothing remains but to split it, and that is not an important or significant act. They break it in two and receive two bowls with jagged rims that serve their purpose well, with no effort and no craftsmanship. Therefore it is considered a vessel already before it is split, and it contracts tumah through the heiset of a zav who carries it, but it does not contract tumah in the tent of a corpse, since its interior is not exposed.
In summary: All three cases explained by Rabbi Yehoshua ben Masya are decided by the intent of the person acting and by the details of the case. In lancing a boil and in trapping a snake we distinguished between a melachah performed for its own purpose, which is forbidden by Torah law, and a melachah not performed for its own purpose, where in these two cases "patur" - exempt - means exempt and permitted, out of concern for people's suffering. And regarding the sealed earthenware vessel we learned that it does not contract tumah in a tent of the dead, since its inside is not exposed, yet it does contract tumah through the shifting and the carrying of a zav; the Tannaim disagreed as to whether it is considered a vessel whose manufacture is complete, and the halachah follows the first Tanna.