Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

August 8, 2020 | 讬状讞 讘讗讘 转砖状驻

Masechet Shabbat is sponsored in memory of Elliot Freilich, Eliyahu Daniel ben Bar Tzion David Halevi z"l by a group of women from Kehilath Jeshurun, Manhattan.

  • This month鈥檚 learning is sponsored by Jon and Yael Cohen in memory of Dr. Robert Van Amerongen.聽May his memory be blessed.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Amy Cohn in memory of her father, Professor Dov Zlotnick who taught his five girls the love of learning.

Shabbat 155

Today’s shiur is dedicated in memory of Rav Adin Steinsaltz who dedicated his life to making the Talmud accessible to all.

Is there a difference between using the sides of a tree or using something attached to the side of the tree? Can one feed animals on Shabbat? What are the parameters? Which animals? Under what circumstances? In what way?

讬转讚 讘讗讬诇谉 讜转诇讛 讘讛 讻诇讻诇讛 诇诪注诇讛 诪注砖专讛 讟驻讞讬诐 讗讬谉 注讬专讜讘讜 注讬专讜讘 诇诪讟讛 诪讬壮 讟驻讞讬诐 注讬专讜讘讜 注讬专讜讘

a stake in a tree and hung a fourbyfour handbreadth basket from it into which he placed the food for his joining of the Shabbat boundaries, if the basket was above ten handbreadths from the ground, his eiruv is not a valid eiruv. It is prohibited for him to take the bread from the basket on Shabbat, because the basket鈥檚 area and height render it a private domain, and he is standing in a different domain. If the basket was below ten handbreadths from the ground, his eiruv is a valid eiruv.

讟注诪讗 讚谞注抓 讬转讚 讘讗讬诇谉 讛讗 诇讗 谞注抓 讗驻讬诇讜 诇诪讟讛 诪讬壮 讟驻讞讬诐 讗讬谉 注讬专讜讘讜 注讬专讜讘 讜讛讗 讛讗讬 转谞讗 讚拽讗住专 讘爪讚讚讬谉 讜拽砖专讬 讘爪讚讬 爪讚讚讬谉

The Gemara examines this statement: The reason for this distinction between above and below ten handbreadths is specifically because he drove a stake into a tree and hung the basket from it. However, if he did not drive a stake into a tree, but tied the basket to the tree itself, even if it was below ten handbreadths from the ground his eiruv is not a valid eiruv. If he were to take the bread from the basket he would be making use of the sides of the tree, which is prohibited on Shabbat. And isn鈥檛 it the case that this is the tanna who prohibits using the sides of the tree, and nevertheless, he permits using the sides of the sides, contrary to Rava鈥檚 opinion?

讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讛讻讗 讘讻诇讻诇讛 讚讞讜拽讛 注住拽讬谞谉 讚讘讛讚讬 讚砖拽讬诇 诇讬讛 诇注讬专讜讘 拽诪谞讬讚 诇讬讛 诇讗讬诇谉 讜拽诪砖诪砖 讘讗讬诇谉 讙讜驻讬讛 讜讛诇讻转讗 爪讚讚讬谉 讗住讜专讬谉 爪讚讬 爪讚讚讬谉 诪讜转专讬谉

Rav Pappa said: Here, we are dealing with a narrow-mouthed basket that is tightly tied to the tree. Since it is difficult to remove anything from it, when he takes the bread for the eiruv he moves the tree, and he is thereby using the sides of the tree itself and not the sides of the sides of the tree. The Gemara concludes: And the halakha is that use of the sides of a tree or an animal is prohibited on Shabbat, but use of the sides of the sides is permitted.

讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 讛砖转讗 讚讗诪专转 爪讚讚讬谉 讗住讜专讬谉 讛讗讬 讚专讙讗 讚诪讚诇讗 诇讗 诇讬谞讞讬讛 讗讬谞讬砖 讗讚讬拽诇讗 讚讛讜讜 诇讛讜 爪讚讚讬谉 讗诇讗 诇讬谞讞讬讛 讗讙讜讜讗讝讬 诇讘专 诪讚讬拽诇讗 讜讻讬 住诇讬拽 诇讗 诇讬谞讞 讻专注讬讛 讗讙讜讜讗讝讬 讗诇讗 诇讬转谞讞 讗拽谞讬谉:

Rav Ashi said: Now that you said that the halakha is that use of the sides is prohibited, with regard to this ladder that one climbs to an elevated area, a person may not lean it against the palm tree itself because it is considered use of the sides of the tree on Shabbat. Rather, he should lean it on stakes that are external to the trunk of the palm tree. And when one climbs the ladder, he should not place his foot on the stakes. Rather, he should place it on the rungs of the ladder because it is prohibited to use the sides of the tree.

诪转谞讬壮 诪转讬专讬谉 驻拽讬注讬 注诪讬专 诇驻谞讬 讘讛诪讛 讜诪驻住驻住讬谉 讗转 讛讻讬驻讬谉 讗讘诇 诇讗 讗转(讗) 讛讝讬专讬谉 讗讬谉 诪专住拽讬谉 诇讗 讗转 讛砖讞转 讜诇讗 讗转 讛讞专讜讘讬谉 诇驻谞讬 讘讛诪讛 讘讬谉 讚拽讛 讜讘讬谉 讙住讛 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诪转讬专 讘讞专讜讘讬谉 诇讚拽讛:

MISHNA: One may untie peki鈥檌n of grain before an animal on Shabbat, and one may spread the kifin but not the zirin. These terms will be explained in the Gemara. One may not crush hay or carobs before an animal on Shabbat in order to facilitate its eating. He may do so neither for a small animal [daka] nor for a large one. Rabbi Yehuda permits to do so with carobs for a small animal, because it can swallow the hard carobs only with difficulty.

讙诪壮 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讛谉 讛谉 驻拽讬注讬谉 讛谉 讛谉 讻讬驻讬谉 驻拽讬注讬谉 转专讬 讻讬驻讬谉 转诇转讗(讘) 讝讬专讬谉 讚讗专讝讬 讜讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 诪转讬专讬谉 驻拽讬注讬 注诪讬专 诇驻谞讬 讘讛诪讛 讜诪驻住驻住讬谉 讜讛讜讗 讛讚讬谉 诇讻讬驻讬谉 讗讘诇 诇讗 讗转 讛讝讬专讬谉 诇讗 诇驻住驻住 讜诇讗 诇讛转讬专 讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘 讛讜谞讗 拽讗 住讘专 诇诪讟专讞 讘讗讜讻诇讗 讟专讞讬谞谉 诇砖讜讬讬 讗讜讻诇讗 诇讗 诪砖讜讬谞谉

GEMARA: Rav Huna said: They are called peki鈥檌n and they are also called kifin. The difference between them is that peki鈥檌n are tied with two knots, whereas kifin are tied with three. Zirin, which may not be moved on Shabbat, are bundles of cedar branches eaten by animals when the branches are small and moist. And this is what the mishna is saying: One may untie peki鈥檌n of grain before an animal and spread them, and the same is true for kifin, but not for zirin, which one may neither spread nor untie. Rav 岣sda said: What is the reason for the opinion of Rav Huna? He holds that with regard to exerting oneself with food on Shabbat, one may exert himself; however, with regard to rendering food edible, one may not render it so. Bundles of crops which are fit for animal consumption in their present state may be further prepared on Shabbat. Cedar branches cannot be eaten when bound together; therefore, one may not exert himself to untie them and render them edible on Shabbat.

专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 讛谉 讛谉 驻拽讬注讬谉 讛谉 讛谉 讝讬专讬谉 驻拽讬注讬谉 转专讬 讝讬专讬谉 转诇转讗 讻讬驻讬谉 讚讗专讝讬 讜讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 诪转讬专讬谉 驻拽讬注讬 注诪讬专 诇驻谞讬 讘讛诪讛 讗讘诇 驻住驻讜住讬 诇讗 讜讻讬驻讬谉 驻住驻讜住讬 谞诪讬 诪驻住驻住讬谞谉 讗讘诇 诇讗 讛讝讬专讬谉 诇驻住驻住[讗] 讗诇讗 诇讛转讬专 讗诪专 专讘讗 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 拽住讘专 砖讜讜讬 讗讜讻诇讗 诪砖讜讬谞谉 诪讟专讞 讘讗讜讻诇讗 诇讗 讟专讞讬谞谉

Rav Yehuda understood the mishna differently and said: They are called peki鈥檌n and they are also called zirin. The difference between them is that peki鈥檌n are tied with two knots, whereas zirin are tied with three. Kifin are bundles of cedar branches. And this is what the mishna is saying: One may untie peki鈥檌n of grain before an animal; however, with regard to spreading them, no, he may not spread them. And with regard to kifin, one may also spread them. However, that is not the case with regard to zirin, as it is prohibited to spread them, and it is only permitted to untie them. Rava said: What is the reason for Rav Yehuda鈥檚 opinion? He holds the opposite of Rav Huna鈥檚 opinion. He holds that with regard to rendering food edible, one may render it so; however, with regard to exerting oneself on Shabbat with food that is already in an edible state, one may not exert himself.

转谞谉 讚讗讬谉 诪专住拽讬谉 讗转 讛砖讞转 讜讗转 讛讞专讜讘讬谉 诇驻谞讬 讘讛诪讛 讘讬谉 讚拽讛 讜讘讬谉 讙住讛 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讞专讜讘讬谉 讚讜诪讬讗 讚砖讞转 诪讛 砖讞转 讚专讻讬讻讬 讗祝 讞专讜讘讬谉 讚专讻讬讻讬 讗诇诪讗 诇讗 讟专讞讬谞谉 讘讗讜讻诇讗 讜转讬讜讘转讬讛 讚专讘 讛讜谞讗

We learned in the mishna: One may not crush hay or carobs before an animal on Shabbat in order to facilitate its eating. He may do so neither for a small animal nor for a large one. Is this not referring to carobs that are similar to hay? Just as it is referring to hay that is soft, so too, it is referring to carobs that are soft. Apparently, we do not exert ourselves with food. Since the carobs are suitable for animal consumption without being crushed, it is prohibited to exert oneself and crush them. And this is a conclusive refutation of the opinion of Rav Huna.

讗诪专 诇讱 专讘 讛讜谞讗 诇讗 砖讞转 讚讜诪讬讗 讚讞专讜讘讬谉 诪讛 讞专讜讘讬谉 讚讗拽讜砖讬 讗祝 砖讞转 讚讗拽讜砖讬 讛讬讻讬 诪砖讻讞转 诇讛 讘注讬诇讬 讝讜讟专讬

The Gemara answers that Rav Huna could have said to you: No, the mishna is referring to hay that is similar to carobs. Just as it is referring to carobs that are hard, so too, it is referring to hay that is hard and crushing it renders it edible. The Gemara asks: How is it possible to find hay that is so hard that an animal cannot eat it? The Gemara answers: It is referring to young donkeys, that can only eat hay that is crushed well.

转讗 砖诪注 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诪转讬专 讘讞专讜讘讬谉 诇讚拽讛 诇讚拽讛 讗讬谉 诇讙住讛 诇讗 讗讬 讗诪专转 讘砖诇诪讗 转谞讗 拽诪讗 住讘专 诪讬讟专讞 讘讗讜讻诇讗 诇讗 讟专讞讬谞谉 砖讜讜讬 诪砖讜讬谞谉 讛讬讬谞讜 讚拽讗 讗诪专 专壮 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讞专讜讘讬谉 诇讚拽讛 谞诪讬 砖讜讜讬 讗讜讻诇讗 讛讜讗 讗诇讗 讗讬 讗诪专转 转谞讗 拽诪讗 住讘专 砖讜讜讬 讗讜讻诇讗 诇讗 诪砖讜讬谞谉 诪讬讟专讞 讘讗讜讻诇讗 诪讟专讞讬谞谉 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讚诪转讬专 讘讞专讜讘讬谉 诇讚拽讛 讻诇 砖讻谉 诇讙住讛

Come and hear a proof from that which we learned in the continuation of the mishna: Rabbi Yehuda permits crushing carobs for a small animal. The Gemara infers: For a small animal, yes, it is permitted; for a large one, no, it is not permitted. Granted, if you say that the first tanna holds: One may not exert himself with food on Shabbat, but with regard to rendering food edible, one may render food edible, that explains that which Rabbi Yehuda said in response: Feeding carobs to a small animal is also a case of rendering food edible because the animal cannot eat hard carobs. However, if you say that the first tanna holds that with regard to rendering food edible, one may not render food edible on Shabbat, but with regard to exerting oneself with food, one may exert himself, then Rabbi Yehuda, who permits crushing carobs for a small animal, all the more so he should permit crushing carobs for a large one. If carobs are suitable for consumption by a small animal, all the more so are they suitable for consumption by a large animal.

诪讬 住讘专转 讚拽讛 讚拽讛 诪诪砖 诪讗讬 讚拽讛 讙住讛 讜诪讗讬 拽专讬 诇讛 讚拽讛 讚讚讬讬拽讗 讘讗讜讻诇讗

The Gemara rejects this: Do you hold that the small animal [daka] mentioned here is referring to an actual small animal? No; rather, what is the meaning of daka here? It is referring to a large animal. And what is the reason that the mishna calls it daka? Because it is particular [dayka] about its food. Since this animal can eat uncrushed carobs when there is no alternative, one may exert himself and crush them for it.

讛讗 诪讚拽转谞讬 专讬砖讗 讘讬谉 讚拽讛 讜讘讬谉 讙住讛 诪讻诇诇 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讚拽讛 讚拽讛 诪诪砖 拽讗诪专 拽砖讬讗

The Gemara asks: From the fact that it is taught in the first clause of the mishna: Neither for a small animal nor for a large animal, it can be inferred that when Rabbi Yehuda said daka, he meant an actual small animal. The Gemara was unable to answer to find an answer to this question and it remains difficult. Nonetheless, Rav Huna鈥檚 opinion was not refuted.

转讗 砖诪注 诪讞转讻讬谉

Therefore, come and hear a proof from that which we learned in another mishna: One may chop

讗转 讛讚诇讜注讬谉 诇驻谞讬 讛讘讛诪讛 讜讗转 讛谞讘诇讛 诇驻谞讬 讛讻诇讘讬诐 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讚诇讜注讬谉 讚讜诪讬讗 讚谞讘诇讛 诪讛 谞讘诇讛 讚专讻讬讻讗 讗祝 讚诇讜注讬谉 讚专讻讬讻讬 讗诇诪讗 讟专讞讬谞谉 讘讗讜讻诇讗 讜转讬讜讘转讗 讚专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 诇讱 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 诇讗 谞讘诇讛 讚讜诪讬讗 讚讚诇讜注讬谉 诪讛 讚诇讜注讬谉 讚讗砖讜谞讬 讗祝 谞讘诇讛 讚讗砖讜谞讗 讜讛讬讻讬 诪砖讻讞转 诇讛 讘讘砖专 驻讬诇讬 讗讬 谞诪讬 讘讙讜专讬讬讗转讗 讝讜讟专讬

pumpkins before an animal and an animal carcass before dogs. Is this not referring to pumpkins that are similar to an animal carcass? Just as an animal carcass is soft, so too, the pumpkins referred to here are soft. Apparently, one may exert himself with food, and this is a conclusive refutation of the opinion of Rav Yehuda. The Gemara answers that Rav Yehuda could have said to you: No, the mishna is referring to an animal carcass that is similar to pumpkins. Just as the reference is to pumpkins that are hard, so too, the reference is to an animal carcass that is hard, and chopping it renders it edible. The Gemara asks: And how is it possible to find an animal carcass that is so hard that another animal cannot eat it? The Gemara answers: The mishna is referring to elephant flesh. Alternatively, it can be explained that the mishna is referring to more common animal meat placed before puppies that can eat only chopped meat.

转讗 砖诪注 讚转谞讬 专讘 讞谞谉 诪谞讛专讚注讗 诪驻专讻讬谞谉 转讘谉 讜讗住驻住转讗 讜诪注专讘讬谉 讗诇诪讗 讟专讞讬谞谉 讘讗讜讻诇讗 转讘谉 讘转讬讘谞讗 住专讬讗 讗住驻住转讗 讘注讬诇讬 讝讜讟专讬:

Come and hear a proof from that which Rav 岣nan of Neharde鈥檃 taught: One may crumble straw and alfalfa on Shabbat and mix the two together, and the animal then eats the straw because it is mixed with the alfalfa. Apparently, one may exert himself with food on Shabbat. The Gemara rejects this proof: No, the straw mentioned here is rotten straw that requires special preparation to render it suitable for animal consumption, and alfalfa is taught with regard to young donkeys who can only eat it in small pieces.

诪转谞讬壮 讗讬谉 讗讜讘住讬谉 讗转 讛讙诪诇 讜诇讗 讚讜专住讬谉 讗讘诇 诪诇注讬讟讬谉 讜讗讬谉 诪讗诪讬专讬谉 讗转 讛注讙诇讬诐 讗讘诇 诪诇注讬讟讬谉 讜诪讛诇拽讟讬谉 诇转专谞讙讜诇讬谉 讜谞讜转谞讬谉 诪讬诐 诇诪讜专住谉 讗讘诇 诇讗 讙讜讘诇讬谉 讜讗讬谉 谞讜转谞讬谉 诪讬诐 诇驻谞讬 讚讘讜专讬诐 讜诇驻谞讬 讬讜谞讬诐 砖讘砖讜讘讱 讗讘诇 谞讜转谞讬谉 诇驻谞讬 讗讜讜讝讬谉 讜转专谞讙讜诇讬谉 讜诇驻谞讬 讬讜谞讬 讛专讚讬住讬讜转:

MISHNA: One may not forcibly overfeed a camel on Shabbat and one may not force-feed it, even if in doing so he does not overfeed the camel. However, one may place food into its mouth. And the mishna makes a distinction, which will be explained in the Gemara, between two manners of placing food in the mouths of cattle. One may not place food in the mouths of calves on Shabbat in the manner of hamra鈥檃, but one may do so in the manner of halata. And one may force-feed chickens. And one may add water to bran used as animal feed, but one may not knead the mixture. And one may not place water before bees or before doves in a dove-cote, because they are capable of finding their own food; however, one may place water before geese and chickens and before hardisian [hardeisiyyot] doves.

讙诪壮 诪讗讬 讗讬谉 讗讜讘住讬谉 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讬谉 注讜砖讬谉 诇讛 讗讘讜住 讘转讜讱 诪注讬讛 诪讬 讗讬讻讗 讻讬 讛讗讬 讙讜讜谞讗 讗讬谉 讜讻讚讗诪专 专讘 讬专诪讬讛 诪讚讬驻转讬 诇讚讬讚讬 讞讝讬 诇讬 讛讛讜讗 讟讬讬注讗 讚讗讻诇讗 讻讜专讗 讜讗讟注讬谞讗 讻讜专讗:

GEMARA: We learned in the mishna that one may not forcibly overfeed a camel on Shabbat. The Gemara asks: What is meaning of: One may not forcibly overfeed? Rav Yehuda said: One may not feed a camel to the point that it creates a trough inside of its stomach. The Gemara asks: Is there the possibility of feeding a camel in that manner? The Gemara answers: Yes; and as Rav Yirmeya of Difti said: I saw an Arab who fed his camel a kor of food and loaded it with another kor on its back.

讗讬谉 诪讗诪讬专讬谉: 讗讬讝讜 讛讬讗 讛诪专讗讛 讜讗讬讝讜 讛讬讗 讛诇注讟讛 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讛诪专讗讛 诇诪拽讜诐 砖讗讬谞讛 讬讻讜诇讛 诇讛讞讝讬专 讛诇注讟讛 诇诪拽讜诐 砖讬讻讜诇讛 诇讛讞讝讬专 专讘 讞住讚讗 讗诪专 讗讬讚讬 讜讗讬讚讬 诇诪拽讜诐 砖讗讬谞讛 讬讻讜诇讛 诇讛讞讝讬专 讜讛诪专讗讛 讘讻诇讬 讛诇注讟讛 讘讬讚

We learned in the mishna: One may not place food in the mouths of calves on Shabbat in the manner of hamra鈥檃, but one may do so in the manner of halata. The Gemara asks: Which is hamra鈥檃 and which is halata? Rav Yehuda said: Hamra鈥檃 is positioning food into a place in the animal鈥檚 throat from which it cannot return and expel the food. Halata is positioning food into a place in the animal鈥檚 mouth from which it can return and expel the food. Rav 岣sda said: Both this and that refer to positioning food into a place from which the animal cannot return and expel the food; however, the difference between them is that in hamra鈥檃 the food is placed with a vessel, whereas in halata the food is placed by hand.

诪转讬讘 专讘 讬讜住祝 诪讛诇拽讟讬谉 诇转专谞讙讜诇讬谉 讜讗讬谉 爪专讬讱 诇讜诪专 砖诪诇拽讬讟讬谉 讜讗讬谉 诪诇拽讬讟讬谉 诇讬讜谞讬 砖讜讘讱 讜诇讬讜谞讬 注诇讬讬讛 讜讗讬谉 爪专讬讱 诇讜诪专 砖讗讬谉 诪讛诇拽讟讬谉 诪讗讬 诪讛诇拽讟讬谉 讜诪讗讬 诪诇拽讬讟讬谉 讗讬诇讬诪讗 诪讛诇拽讟讬谉 讚住驻讬 诇讬讛 讘讬讚讬诐 诪诇拽讬讟讬谉 讚砖讚讬 诇讬讛 拽诪讬讬讛讜 诪讻诇诇 讚讬讜谞讬 砖讜讘讱 讜讬讜谞讬 注诇讬讬讛 诪讬砖讚讗 拽诪讬讬讛讜 谞诪讬 诇讗

Rav Yosef raised an objection from that which was taught in the Tosefta: One may force-feed [mehalketin] chickens, and needless to say, one may malkitin. And one may not malkitin doves in a dove-cote or doves in an attic, and needless to say, one may not force-feed. The Gemara asks: What is mehalketin and what is malkitin? If you say that mehalketin means that one feeds the bird by hand and malkitin means that one throws the food before them, by inference, throwing food before doves in a dove-cote or before doves in an attic is also not permitted. But why would that be prohibited?

讗诇讗 诇讗讜 诪讛诇拽讟讬谉 诇诪拽讜诐 砖讗讬谞讛 讬讻讜诇讛 诇讛讞讝讬专 诪诇拽讬讟讬谉 诇诪拽讜诐 砖讬讻讜诇讛 诇讛讞讝讬专 诪讻诇诇 讚讛诪专讗讛 讘讻诇讬 讜转讬讜讘转讗 讚专讘 讬讛讜讚讛

Rather, is it not that mehalketin means positioning food into a place from which the bird cannot return and expel the food, and malkitin means positioning food into a place from which it can return and expel the food? Therefore, mehalketin in the case of birds is similar to halata into a camel鈥檚 mouth, which the mishna permitted. By inference, the hamra鈥檃 prohibited in the mishna is performed with a vessel, and this poses a conclusive refutation to the opinion of Rav Yehuda.

讗诪专 诇讱 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 诇注讜诇诐 诪讛诇拽讟讬谉 讚住驻讬 诇讬讛 讘讬讚讬诐 诪诇拽讬讟讬谉 讚砖讚讬 诇讬讛 拽诪讬讬讛讜 讜讚拽讗 拽砖讬讗 诇讱 讬讜谞讬 砖讜讘讱 讜讬讜谞讬 注诇讬讬讛 诇诪讬砖讚讗 拽诪讬讬讛讜 谞诪讬 诇讗 讛谞讬 诪讝讜谞讜转谉 注诇讬讱 讜讛谞讬 讗讬谉 诪讝讜谞讜转谉 注诇讬讱 讻讚转谞讬讗 谞讜转谞讬谉 诪讝讜谞讜转 诇驻谞讬 讻诇讘 讜讗讬谉 谞讜转谞讬谉 诪讝讜谞讜转 诇驻谞讬 讞讝讬专 讜诪讛 讛驻专砖 讘讬谉 讝讛 诇讝讛 讝讛 诪讝讜谞讜转讬讜 注诇讬讱 讜讝讛 讗讬谉 诪讝讜谞讜转讬讜 注诇讬讱

Rav Yehuda could have said to you: Actually, mehalketin means that one feeds the bird by hand, and malkitin mean that one throws the food before them. And that which was difficult for you: Is throwing food before doves in a dove-cote or doves in an attic also not permitted on Shabbat? This is not difficult because with regard to these chickens and geese that were mentioned, sole responsibility for their sustenance is incumbent upon you as they are incapable of providing for themselves. However, in the case of these doves, responsibility for their sustenance is not incumbent upon you, and therefore, it is prohibited to place food before them, as it was taught in a baraita: One may place sustenance before a dog on Shabbat, but one may not place sustenance before a pig. And what is the difference between this and that? In this case of the dog, responsibility for its sustenance is incumbent upon you, and in that case of the pig, responsibility for its sustenance is not incumbent upon you, as no Jew raises pigs.

讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 诪转谞讬转讬谉 谞诪讬 讚讬拽讗 讗讬谉 谞讜转谞讬谉 诪讬诐 诇驻谞讬 讚讘讜专讬诐 讜诇驻谞讬 讬讜谞讬诐 砖讘砖讜讘讱 讗讘诇 谞讜转谞讬谉 诇驻谞讬 讗讜讜讝讬谉 讜诇驻谞讬 转专谞讙讜诇讬谉 讜诇驻谞讬 讬讜谞讬 讛专讚讬住讬讜转 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诇讗讜 诪砖讜诐 讚讛谞讬 诪讝讜谞讜转谉 注诇讬讱 讜讛谞讬 讗讬谉 诪讝讜谞讜转谉 注诇讬讱

Rav Ashi said: The language of the mishna is also precise in support of this explanation, as we learn: And one may not place water before bees or before doves in a dove-cote because they are capable of finding their own food; however, one may place water before geese and chickens and before hardisian doves. What is the reason for this distinction? Is it not because for these, geese and chickens, responsibility for their sustenance is incumbent upon you, and for those, bees and doves, responsibility for their sustenance is not incumbent upon you?

讜诇讬讟注诪讬讱 诪讗讬 讗讬专讬讗 诪讬讗 讗驻讬诇讜 讞讬讟讬 讜砖注专讬 谞诪讬 诇讗 讗诇讗 砖讗谞讬 诪讬讗 讚砖讻讬讞讬 讘讗讙诪讗

The Gemara rejects this proof: And according to your reasoning, why did the mishna cite a case specifically involving water? Even wheat and barley should also not be permitted. Rather, the reason for the distinction between the halakhot is that water is different because it is found in a lake or in other reservoirs, and therefore one need not exert himself to provide water for bees and doves. That is not the case with the rest of their food.

讚专砖 专讘讬 讬讜谞讛 讗驻讬转讞讗 讚讘讬 谞砖讬讗讛 诪讗讬 讚讻转讬讘 (讬讜讚注) 爪讚讬拽 讚讬谉 讚诇讬诐 讬讜讚注 讛拽讚讜砖 讘专讜讱 讛讜讗 讘讻诇讘 砖诪讝讜谞讜转讬讜 诪讜注讟讬谉 诇驻讬讻讱 砖讜讛讛 讗讻讬诇转讜 讘诪注讬讜 砖诇砖讛 讬诪讬诐 讻讚转谞谉 讻诪讛 转砖讛讛 讗讻讬诇转讜 讘诪注讬讜 讜讬讛讗 讟诪讗 讘讻诇讘 砖诇砖讛 讬诪讬诐 诪注转 诇注转 讜讘注讜驻讜转 讜讘讚讙讬诐 讻讚讬 砖转驻讜诇 诇讗讜专 讜转砖专祝

Returning to the discussion of feeding dogs, the Gemara cites additional statements on the topic. Rabbi Yona taught at the entrance to the house of the Nasi: What is the meaning of that which is written: 鈥淭he righteous man takes knowledge of the cause of the poor鈥 (Proverbs 29:7)? The Holy One, Blessed be He, knows that for a dog, its sustenance is scarce and they are not fed sufficiently. Therefore, its food remains in its intestines for three days so that the dog will be sustained by that food, as we learned in a mishna dealing with the halakhot of ritual impurity: After an animal eats flesh from a corpse, how long does its food remain in its intestines undigested and therefore ritually impure? In the case of a dog it is for three twenty-four hour periods, and for fowl and fish, who digest their food quickly, it is the equivalent of the time it takes for the flesh to fall into the fire and be consumed by the fire.

讗诪专 专讘 讛诪谞讜谞讗 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讗讜专讞 讗专注讗 诇诪砖讚讗 讗讜诪爪讗 诇讻诇讘讗 讜讻诪讛 讗诪专 专讘 诪专讬 诪砖讞 讗讜讚谞讬讛 讜讞讜讟专讗 讗讘转专讬讛 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讘讚讘专讗 讗讘诇 讘诪转讗 诇讗 讚讗转讗 诇诪住专讱 讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 诇讬转 讚注谞讬讗 诪讻诇讘讗 讜诇讬转 讚注转讬专 诪讞讝讬专讗

Rav Hamnuna said: Learn from it: It is the way of the world, i.e., proper conduct, to throw a piece of meat before a dog, as even the Holy One, Blessed be He, concerns Himself with the dog鈥檚 sustenance. The Gemara asks: And how much food should one give to a dog? Rav Mari said: Give it the equivalent of the measure of its ear and strike it immediately thereafter with a staff so that the dog will not grow attached to the one who fed it. This applies specifically when one is in the field, but in the city, one should not give anything to a dog because the dog will be drawn to follow him and remain with him. Rav Pappa said: There is no creature poorer than a dog, and no creature richer than a pig, as pigs will eat anything, and people provide them with plentiful amounts of food.

转谞讬讗 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讬讝讜 讛讬讗 讛诪专讗讛 讜讗讬讝讜 讛讬讗 讛诇注讟讛 讛诪专讗讛 诪专讘讬爪讛 讜驻讜拽住 讗转 驻讬讛 讜诪讗讻讬诇讛 讻专砖讬谞讬谉 讜诪讬诐 讘讘转 讗讞转 讛诇注讟讛 诪讗讻讬诇讛 诪注讜诪讚 讜诪砖拽讛 诪注讜诪讚 讜谞讜转谞讬谉 讻专砖讬谞讬谉 讘驻谞讬 注爪诪谉 讜诪讬诐 讘驻谞讬 注爪诪谉:

With regard to the halakhic ruling, a baraita was taught in accordance with the opinion of Rav Yehuda: What is hamra鈥檃 and what is halata? Hamra鈥檃 is when a person forcibly lays the animal on the ground and forces its mouth open and feeds it vetch and water simultaneously so that the animal will be unable to expel it. Halata is when one feeds the animal while it is standing and gives it to drink while it is standing, i.e., gives it food and drink in the usual manner, and one gives it vetch separately and water separately, to augment what the animal eats on its own.

诪讛诇拽讟讬谉 诇转专谞讙讜诇讬谉 讻讜壮: 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讗诪专讬转讛 拽诪讬讛 讚诪专 诪转谞讬转讬谉 诪谞讬 讜讗诪专 诇讬 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讬讗 讚转谞讬讗 讗讞讚 谞讜转谉 讗转 讛拽诪讞 讜讗讞讚 谞讜转谉 诇转讜讻讜 诪讬诐 讛讗讞专讜谉 讞讬讬讘 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讗讬谞讜 讞讬讬讘 注讚 砖讬讙讘诇

We learned in the mishna: And one may force-feed chickens, and one may add water to bran, but one may not knead the mixture. Abaye said: I said this before my Master, Rabba: Whose opinion is it in the mishna? And he said to me: It is the opinion of Rabbi Yosei bar Yehuda, as it was taught in a baraita: If one person places flour and another one places water into it, the latter is liable to bring a sin-offering for performing the prohibited labor of kneading. This is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. Rabbi Yosei bar Yehuda says: One is only liable when he actually kneads the flour and water together. He is not liable for merely adding water to the flour. This is similar to the ruling of the mishna that one may pour water into the bran but may not knead the mixture.

讚讬诇诪讗 注讚 讻讗谉 诇讗 拽讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专 讬讛讜讚讛 讛转诐 讗诇讗 拽诪讞 讚讘专 讙讬讘讜诇 讛讜讗 讗讘诇 诪讜专住谉 讚诇讗讜 讘专 讙讬讘讜诇 讛讜讗 讗驻讬诇讜 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专 讬讛讜讚讛 诪讜讚讛 诇讗 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讚转谞讬讗 讘讛讚讬讗 讗讬谉 谞讜转谞讬谉 诪讬诐 诇诪讜专住谉 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 谞讜转谞讬谉 诪讬诐 诇诪讜专住谉

The Gemara rejects this: Perhaps Rabbi Yosei bar Yehuda only stated that actual kneading is required to be liable for performing the prohibited labor of kneading in the case of flour, which can be kneaded; however, in the case of bran, which cannot be kneaded into a dough, even Rabbi Yosei bar Yehuda would concede that it is prohibited, even if one does not actually knead the mixture. The Gemara rejects this statement: It should not enter your mind to explain it that way, as it was taught explicitly in a baraita: One may not place water into bran on Shabbat; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. Rabbi Yosei bar Yehuda says: One may place water into bran.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讗讬谉 讙讜讘诇讬谉 讗转 讛拽诇讬 讜讬砖 讗讜诪专讬诐 讙讜讘诇讬谉 诪讗谉 讜讬砖 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗

The Sages taught: On Shabbat, one may not knead sweet flour made from unripe grain that was dried in an oven, and some say: One may knead it. The Gemara asks: Whose is the opinion introduced as: And some say? Rav 岣sda said:

Masechet Shabbat is sponsored in memory of Elliot Freilich, Eliyahu Daniel ben Bar Tzion David Halevi z"l by a group of women from Kehilath Jeshurun, Manhattan.

  • This month鈥檚 learning is sponsored by Jon and Yael Cohen in memory of Dr. Robert Van Amerongen.聽May his memory be blessed.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Amy Cohn in memory of her father, Professor Dov Zlotnick who taught his five girls the love of learning.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

learn daf yomi one week at a time with tamara spitz

Daf Yomi One Week at a Time – Shabbat 152-157 +Siyum

We will review key concepts in Daf 152-157 including the effects of aging, having a Non-Jew carry your items on...
Ilana Kurshan thumbnail

Rav Adin Steinsaltz, z鈥漧

The weekend that Rav Adin Steinsaltz,聽zecher tzaddik li鈥檝racha, passed away, I was in the middle of editing an article about...

Shabbat 155

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Shabbat 155

讬转讚 讘讗讬诇谉 讜转诇讛 讘讛 讻诇讻诇讛 诇诪注诇讛 诪注砖专讛 讟驻讞讬诐 讗讬谉 注讬专讜讘讜 注讬专讜讘 诇诪讟讛 诪讬壮 讟驻讞讬诐 注讬专讜讘讜 注讬专讜讘

a stake in a tree and hung a fourbyfour handbreadth basket from it into which he placed the food for his joining of the Shabbat boundaries, if the basket was above ten handbreadths from the ground, his eiruv is not a valid eiruv. It is prohibited for him to take the bread from the basket on Shabbat, because the basket鈥檚 area and height render it a private domain, and he is standing in a different domain. If the basket was below ten handbreadths from the ground, his eiruv is a valid eiruv.

讟注诪讗 讚谞注抓 讬转讚 讘讗讬诇谉 讛讗 诇讗 谞注抓 讗驻讬诇讜 诇诪讟讛 诪讬壮 讟驻讞讬诐 讗讬谉 注讬专讜讘讜 注讬专讜讘 讜讛讗 讛讗讬 转谞讗 讚拽讗住专 讘爪讚讚讬谉 讜拽砖专讬 讘爪讚讬 爪讚讚讬谉

The Gemara examines this statement: The reason for this distinction between above and below ten handbreadths is specifically because he drove a stake into a tree and hung the basket from it. However, if he did not drive a stake into a tree, but tied the basket to the tree itself, even if it was below ten handbreadths from the ground his eiruv is not a valid eiruv. If he were to take the bread from the basket he would be making use of the sides of the tree, which is prohibited on Shabbat. And isn鈥檛 it the case that this is the tanna who prohibits using the sides of the tree, and nevertheless, he permits using the sides of the sides, contrary to Rava鈥檚 opinion?

讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讛讻讗 讘讻诇讻诇讛 讚讞讜拽讛 注住拽讬谞谉 讚讘讛讚讬 讚砖拽讬诇 诇讬讛 诇注讬专讜讘 拽诪谞讬讚 诇讬讛 诇讗讬诇谉 讜拽诪砖诪砖 讘讗讬诇谉 讙讜驻讬讛 讜讛诇讻转讗 爪讚讚讬谉 讗住讜专讬谉 爪讚讬 爪讚讚讬谉 诪讜转专讬谉

Rav Pappa said: Here, we are dealing with a narrow-mouthed basket that is tightly tied to the tree. Since it is difficult to remove anything from it, when he takes the bread for the eiruv he moves the tree, and he is thereby using the sides of the tree itself and not the sides of the sides of the tree. The Gemara concludes: And the halakha is that use of the sides of a tree or an animal is prohibited on Shabbat, but use of the sides of the sides is permitted.

讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 讛砖转讗 讚讗诪专转 爪讚讚讬谉 讗住讜专讬谉 讛讗讬 讚专讙讗 讚诪讚诇讗 诇讗 诇讬谞讞讬讛 讗讬谞讬砖 讗讚讬拽诇讗 讚讛讜讜 诇讛讜 爪讚讚讬谉 讗诇讗 诇讬谞讞讬讛 讗讙讜讜讗讝讬 诇讘专 诪讚讬拽诇讗 讜讻讬 住诇讬拽 诇讗 诇讬谞讞 讻专注讬讛 讗讙讜讜讗讝讬 讗诇讗 诇讬转谞讞 讗拽谞讬谉:

Rav Ashi said: Now that you said that the halakha is that use of the sides is prohibited, with regard to this ladder that one climbs to an elevated area, a person may not lean it against the palm tree itself because it is considered use of the sides of the tree on Shabbat. Rather, he should lean it on stakes that are external to the trunk of the palm tree. And when one climbs the ladder, he should not place his foot on the stakes. Rather, he should place it on the rungs of the ladder because it is prohibited to use the sides of the tree.

诪转谞讬壮 诪转讬专讬谉 驻拽讬注讬 注诪讬专 诇驻谞讬 讘讛诪讛 讜诪驻住驻住讬谉 讗转 讛讻讬驻讬谉 讗讘诇 诇讗 讗转(讗) 讛讝讬专讬谉 讗讬谉 诪专住拽讬谉 诇讗 讗转 讛砖讞转 讜诇讗 讗转 讛讞专讜讘讬谉 诇驻谞讬 讘讛诪讛 讘讬谉 讚拽讛 讜讘讬谉 讙住讛 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诪转讬专 讘讞专讜讘讬谉 诇讚拽讛:

MISHNA: One may untie peki鈥檌n of grain before an animal on Shabbat, and one may spread the kifin but not the zirin. These terms will be explained in the Gemara. One may not crush hay or carobs before an animal on Shabbat in order to facilitate its eating. He may do so neither for a small animal [daka] nor for a large one. Rabbi Yehuda permits to do so with carobs for a small animal, because it can swallow the hard carobs only with difficulty.

讙诪壮 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讛谉 讛谉 驻拽讬注讬谉 讛谉 讛谉 讻讬驻讬谉 驻拽讬注讬谉 转专讬 讻讬驻讬谉 转诇转讗(讘) 讝讬专讬谉 讚讗专讝讬 讜讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 诪转讬专讬谉 驻拽讬注讬 注诪讬专 诇驻谞讬 讘讛诪讛 讜诪驻住驻住讬谉 讜讛讜讗 讛讚讬谉 诇讻讬驻讬谉 讗讘诇 诇讗 讗转 讛讝讬专讬谉 诇讗 诇驻住驻住 讜诇讗 诇讛转讬专 讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘 讛讜谞讗 拽讗 住讘专 诇诪讟专讞 讘讗讜讻诇讗 讟专讞讬谞谉 诇砖讜讬讬 讗讜讻诇讗 诇讗 诪砖讜讬谞谉

GEMARA: Rav Huna said: They are called peki鈥檌n and they are also called kifin. The difference between them is that peki鈥檌n are tied with two knots, whereas kifin are tied with three. Zirin, which may not be moved on Shabbat, are bundles of cedar branches eaten by animals when the branches are small and moist. And this is what the mishna is saying: One may untie peki鈥檌n of grain before an animal and spread them, and the same is true for kifin, but not for zirin, which one may neither spread nor untie. Rav 岣sda said: What is the reason for the opinion of Rav Huna? He holds that with regard to exerting oneself with food on Shabbat, one may exert himself; however, with regard to rendering food edible, one may not render it so. Bundles of crops which are fit for animal consumption in their present state may be further prepared on Shabbat. Cedar branches cannot be eaten when bound together; therefore, one may not exert himself to untie them and render them edible on Shabbat.

专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 讛谉 讛谉 驻拽讬注讬谉 讛谉 讛谉 讝讬专讬谉 驻拽讬注讬谉 转专讬 讝讬专讬谉 转诇转讗 讻讬驻讬谉 讚讗专讝讬 讜讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 诪转讬专讬谉 驻拽讬注讬 注诪讬专 诇驻谞讬 讘讛诪讛 讗讘诇 驻住驻讜住讬 诇讗 讜讻讬驻讬谉 驻住驻讜住讬 谞诪讬 诪驻住驻住讬谞谉 讗讘诇 诇讗 讛讝讬专讬谉 诇驻住驻住[讗] 讗诇讗 诇讛转讬专 讗诪专 专讘讗 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 拽住讘专 砖讜讜讬 讗讜讻诇讗 诪砖讜讬谞谉 诪讟专讞 讘讗讜讻诇讗 诇讗 讟专讞讬谞谉

Rav Yehuda understood the mishna differently and said: They are called peki鈥檌n and they are also called zirin. The difference between them is that peki鈥檌n are tied with two knots, whereas zirin are tied with three. Kifin are bundles of cedar branches. And this is what the mishna is saying: One may untie peki鈥檌n of grain before an animal; however, with regard to spreading them, no, he may not spread them. And with regard to kifin, one may also spread them. However, that is not the case with regard to zirin, as it is prohibited to spread them, and it is only permitted to untie them. Rava said: What is the reason for Rav Yehuda鈥檚 opinion? He holds the opposite of Rav Huna鈥檚 opinion. He holds that with regard to rendering food edible, one may render it so; however, with regard to exerting oneself on Shabbat with food that is already in an edible state, one may not exert himself.

转谞谉 讚讗讬谉 诪专住拽讬谉 讗转 讛砖讞转 讜讗转 讛讞专讜讘讬谉 诇驻谞讬 讘讛诪讛 讘讬谉 讚拽讛 讜讘讬谉 讙住讛 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讞专讜讘讬谉 讚讜诪讬讗 讚砖讞转 诪讛 砖讞转 讚专讻讬讻讬 讗祝 讞专讜讘讬谉 讚专讻讬讻讬 讗诇诪讗 诇讗 讟专讞讬谞谉 讘讗讜讻诇讗 讜转讬讜讘转讬讛 讚专讘 讛讜谞讗

We learned in the mishna: One may not crush hay or carobs before an animal on Shabbat in order to facilitate its eating. He may do so neither for a small animal nor for a large one. Is this not referring to carobs that are similar to hay? Just as it is referring to hay that is soft, so too, it is referring to carobs that are soft. Apparently, we do not exert ourselves with food. Since the carobs are suitable for animal consumption without being crushed, it is prohibited to exert oneself and crush them. And this is a conclusive refutation of the opinion of Rav Huna.

讗诪专 诇讱 专讘 讛讜谞讗 诇讗 砖讞转 讚讜诪讬讗 讚讞专讜讘讬谉 诪讛 讞专讜讘讬谉 讚讗拽讜砖讬 讗祝 砖讞转 讚讗拽讜砖讬 讛讬讻讬 诪砖讻讞转 诇讛 讘注讬诇讬 讝讜讟专讬

The Gemara answers that Rav Huna could have said to you: No, the mishna is referring to hay that is similar to carobs. Just as it is referring to carobs that are hard, so too, it is referring to hay that is hard and crushing it renders it edible. The Gemara asks: How is it possible to find hay that is so hard that an animal cannot eat it? The Gemara answers: It is referring to young donkeys, that can only eat hay that is crushed well.

转讗 砖诪注 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诪转讬专 讘讞专讜讘讬谉 诇讚拽讛 诇讚拽讛 讗讬谉 诇讙住讛 诇讗 讗讬 讗诪专转 讘砖诇诪讗 转谞讗 拽诪讗 住讘专 诪讬讟专讞 讘讗讜讻诇讗 诇讗 讟专讞讬谞谉 砖讜讜讬 诪砖讜讬谞谉 讛讬讬谞讜 讚拽讗 讗诪专 专壮 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讞专讜讘讬谉 诇讚拽讛 谞诪讬 砖讜讜讬 讗讜讻诇讗 讛讜讗 讗诇讗 讗讬 讗诪专转 转谞讗 拽诪讗 住讘专 砖讜讜讬 讗讜讻诇讗 诇讗 诪砖讜讬谞谉 诪讬讟专讞 讘讗讜讻诇讗 诪讟专讞讬谞谉 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讚诪转讬专 讘讞专讜讘讬谉 诇讚拽讛 讻诇 砖讻谉 诇讙住讛

Come and hear a proof from that which we learned in the continuation of the mishna: Rabbi Yehuda permits crushing carobs for a small animal. The Gemara infers: For a small animal, yes, it is permitted; for a large one, no, it is not permitted. Granted, if you say that the first tanna holds: One may not exert himself with food on Shabbat, but with regard to rendering food edible, one may render food edible, that explains that which Rabbi Yehuda said in response: Feeding carobs to a small animal is also a case of rendering food edible because the animal cannot eat hard carobs. However, if you say that the first tanna holds that with regard to rendering food edible, one may not render food edible on Shabbat, but with regard to exerting oneself with food, one may exert himself, then Rabbi Yehuda, who permits crushing carobs for a small animal, all the more so he should permit crushing carobs for a large one. If carobs are suitable for consumption by a small animal, all the more so are they suitable for consumption by a large animal.

诪讬 住讘专转 讚拽讛 讚拽讛 诪诪砖 诪讗讬 讚拽讛 讙住讛 讜诪讗讬 拽专讬 诇讛 讚拽讛 讚讚讬讬拽讗 讘讗讜讻诇讗

The Gemara rejects this: Do you hold that the small animal [daka] mentioned here is referring to an actual small animal? No; rather, what is the meaning of daka here? It is referring to a large animal. And what is the reason that the mishna calls it daka? Because it is particular [dayka] about its food. Since this animal can eat uncrushed carobs when there is no alternative, one may exert himself and crush them for it.

讛讗 诪讚拽转谞讬 专讬砖讗 讘讬谉 讚拽讛 讜讘讬谉 讙住讛 诪讻诇诇 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讚拽讛 讚拽讛 诪诪砖 拽讗诪专 拽砖讬讗

The Gemara asks: From the fact that it is taught in the first clause of the mishna: Neither for a small animal nor for a large animal, it can be inferred that when Rabbi Yehuda said daka, he meant an actual small animal. The Gemara was unable to answer to find an answer to this question and it remains difficult. Nonetheless, Rav Huna鈥檚 opinion was not refuted.

转讗 砖诪注 诪讞转讻讬谉

Therefore, come and hear a proof from that which we learned in another mishna: One may chop

讗转 讛讚诇讜注讬谉 诇驻谞讬 讛讘讛诪讛 讜讗转 讛谞讘诇讛 诇驻谞讬 讛讻诇讘讬诐 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讚诇讜注讬谉 讚讜诪讬讗 讚谞讘诇讛 诪讛 谞讘诇讛 讚专讻讬讻讗 讗祝 讚诇讜注讬谉 讚专讻讬讻讬 讗诇诪讗 讟专讞讬谞谉 讘讗讜讻诇讗 讜转讬讜讘转讗 讚专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 诇讱 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 诇讗 谞讘诇讛 讚讜诪讬讗 讚讚诇讜注讬谉 诪讛 讚诇讜注讬谉 讚讗砖讜谞讬 讗祝 谞讘诇讛 讚讗砖讜谞讗 讜讛讬讻讬 诪砖讻讞转 诇讛 讘讘砖专 驻讬诇讬 讗讬 谞诪讬 讘讙讜专讬讬讗转讗 讝讜讟专讬

pumpkins before an animal and an animal carcass before dogs. Is this not referring to pumpkins that are similar to an animal carcass? Just as an animal carcass is soft, so too, the pumpkins referred to here are soft. Apparently, one may exert himself with food, and this is a conclusive refutation of the opinion of Rav Yehuda. The Gemara answers that Rav Yehuda could have said to you: No, the mishna is referring to an animal carcass that is similar to pumpkins. Just as the reference is to pumpkins that are hard, so too, the reference is to an animal carcass that is hard, and chopping it renders it edible. The Gemara asks: And how is it possible to find an animal carcass that is so hard that another animal cannot eat it? The Gemara answers: The mishna is referring to elephant flesh. Alternatively, it can be explained that the mishna is referring to more common animal meat placed before puppies that can eat only chopped meat.

转讗 砖诪注 讚转谞讬 专讘 讞谞谉 诪谞讛专讚注讗 诪驻专讻讬谞谉 转讘谉 讜讗住驻住转讗 讜诪注专讘讬谉 讗诇诪讗 讟专讞讬谞谉 讘讗讜讻诇讗 转讘谉 讘转讬讘谞讗 住专讬讗 讗住驻住转讗 讘注讬诇讬 讝讜讟专讬:

Come and hear a proof from that which Rav 岣nan of Neharde鈥檃 taught: One may crumble straw and alfalfa on Shabbat and mix the two together, and the animal then eats the straw because it is mixed with the alfalfa. Apparently, one may exert himself with food on Shabbat. The Gemara rejects this proof: No, the straw mentioned here is rotten straw that requires special preparation to render it suitable for animal consumption, and alfalfa is taught with regard to young donkeys who can only eat it in small pieces.

诪转谞讬壮 讗讬谉 讗讜讘住讬谉 讗转 讛讙诪诇 讜诇讗 讚讜专住讬谉 讗讘诇 诪诇注讬讟讬谉 讜讗讬谉 诪讗诪讬专讬谉 讗转 讛注讙诇讬诐 讗讘诇 诪诇注讬讟讬谉 讜诪讛诇拽讟讬谉 诇转专谞讙讜诇讬谉 讜谞讜转谞讬谉 诪讬诐 诇诪讜专住谉 讗讘诇 诇讗 讙讜讘诇讬谉 讜讗讬谉 谞讜转谞讬谉 诪讬诐 诇驻谞讬 讚讘讜专讬诐 讜诇驻谞讬 讬讜谞讬诐 砖讘砖讜讘讱 讗讘诇 谞讜转谞讬谉 诇驻谞讬 讗讜讜讝讬谉 讜转专谞讙讜诇讬谉 讜诇驻谞讬 讬讜谞讬 讛专讚讬住讬讜转:

MISHNA: One may not forcibly overfeed a camel on Shabbat and one may not force-feed it, even if in doing so he does not overfeed the camel. However, one may place food into its mouth. And the mishna makes a distinction, which will be explained in the Gemara, between two manners of placing food in the mouths of cattle. One may not place food in the mouths of calves on Shabbat in the manner of hamra鈥檃, but one may do so in the manner of halata. And one may force-feed chickens. And one may add water to bran used as animal feed, but one may not knead the mixture. And one may not place water before bees or before doves in a dove-cote, because they are capable of finding their own food; however, one may place water before geese and chickens and before hardisian [hardeisiyyot] doves.

讙诪壮 诪讗讬 讗讬谉 讗讜讘住讬谉 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讬谉 注讜砖讬谉 诇讛 讗讘讜住 讘转讜讱 诪注讬讛 诪讬 讗讬讻讗 讻讬 讛讗讬 讙讜讜谞讗 讗讬谉 讜讻讚讗诪专 专讘 讬专诪讬讛 诪讚讬驻转讬 诇讚讬讚讬 讞讝讬 诇讬 讛讛讜讗 讟讬讬注讗 讚讗讻诇讗 讻讜专讗 讜讗讟注讬谞讗 讻讜专讗:

GEMARA: We learned in the mishna that one may not forcibly overfeed a camel on Shabbat. The Gemara asks: What is meaning of: One may not forcibly overfeed? Rav Yehuda said: One may not feed a camel to the point that it creates a trough inside of its stomach. The Gemara asks: Is there the possibility of feeding a camel in that manner? The Gemara answers: Yes; and as Rav Yirmeya of Difti said: I saw an Arab who fed his camel a kor of food and loaded it with another kor on its back.

讗讬谉 诪讗诪讬专讬谉: 讗讬讝讜 讛讬讗 讛诪专讗讛 讜讗讬讝讜 讛讬讗 讛诇注讟讛 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讛诪专讗讛 诇诪拽讜诐 砖讗讬谞讛 讬讻讜诇讛 诇讛讞讝讬专 讛诇注讟讛 诇诪拽讜诐 砖讬讻讜诇讛 诇讛讞讝讬专 专讘 讞住讚讗 讗诪专 讗讬讚讬 讜讗讬讚讬 诇诪拽讜诐 砖讗讬谞讛 讬讻讜诇讛 诇讛讞讝讬专 讜讛诪专讗讛 讘讻诇讬 讛诇注讟讛 讘讬讚

We learned in the mishna: One may not place food in the mouths of calves on Shabbat in the manner of hamra鈥檃, but one may do so in the manner of halata. The Gemara asks: Which is hamra鈥檃 and which is halata? Rav Yehuda said: Hamra鈥檃 is positioning food into a place in the animal鈥檚 throat from which it cannot return and expel the food. Halata is positioning food into a place in the animal鈥檚 mouth from which it can return and expel the food. Rav 岣sda said: Both this and that refer to positioning food into a place from which the animal cannot return and expel the food; however, the difference between them is that in hamra鈥檃 the food is placed with a vessel, whereas in halata the food is placed by hand.

诪转讬讘 专讘 讬讜住祝 诪讛诇拽讟讬谉 诇转专谞讙讜诇讬谉 讜讗讬谉 爪专讬讱 诇讜诪专 砖诪诇拽讬讟讬谉 讜讗讬谉 诪诇拽讬讟讬谉 诇讬讜谞讬 砖讜讘讱 讜诇讬讜谞讬 注诇讬讬讛 讜讗讬谉 爪专讬讱 诇讜诪专 砖讗讬谉 诪讛诇拽讟讬谉 诪讗讬 诪讛诇拽讟讬谉 讜诪讗讬 诪诇拽讬讟讬谉 讗讬诇讬诪讗 诪讛诇拽讟讬谉 讚住驻讬 诇讬讛 讘讬讚讬诐 诪诇拽讬讟讬谉 讚砖讚讬 诇讬讛 拽诪讬讬讛讜 诪讻诇诇 讚讬讜谞讬 砖讜讘讱 讜讬讜谞讬 注诇讬讬讛 诪讬砖讚讗 拽诪讬讬讛讜 谞诪讬 诇讗

Rav Yosef raised an objection from that which was taught in the Tosefta: One may force-feed [mehalketin] chickens, and needless to say, one may malkitin. And one may not malkitin doves in a dove-cote or doves in an attic, and needless to say, one may not force-feed. The Gemara asks: What is mehalketin and what is malkitin? If you say that mehalketin means that one feeds the bird by hand and malkitin means that one throws the food before them, by inference, throwing food before doves in a dove-cote or before doves in an attic is also not permitted. But why would that be prohibited?

讗诇讗 诇讗讜 诪讛诇拽讟讬谉 诇诪拽讜诐 砖讗讬谞讛 讬讻讜诇讛 诇讛讞讝讬专 诪诇拽讬讟讬谉 诇诪拽讜诐 砖讬讻讜诇讛 诇讛讞讝讬专 诪讻诇诇 讚讛诪专讗讛 讘讻诇讬 讜转讬讜讘转讗 讚专讘 讬讛讜讚讛

Rather, is it not that mehalketin means positioning food into a place from which the bird cannot return and expel the food, and malkitin means positioning food into a place from which it can return and expel the food? Therefore, mehalketin in the case of birds is similar to halata into a camel鈥檚 mouth, which the mishna permitted. By inference, the hamra鈥檃 prohibited in the mishna is performed with a vessel, and this poses a conclusive refutation to the opinion of Rav Yehuda.

讗诪专 诇讱 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 诇注讜诇诐 诪讛诇拽讟讬谉 讚住驻讬 诇讬讛 讘讬讚讬诐 诪诇拽讬讟讬谉 讚砖讚讬 诇讬讛 拽诪讬讬讛讜 讜讚拽讗 拽砖讬讗 诇讱 讬讜谞讬 砖讜讘讱 讜讬讜谞讬 注诇讬讬讛 诇诪讬砖讚讗 拽诪讬讬讛讜 谞诪讬 诇讗 讛谞讬 诪讝讜谞讜转谉 注诇讬讱 讜讛谞讬 讗讬谉 诪讝讜谞讜转谉 注诇讬讱 讻讚转谞讬讗 谞讜转谞讬谉 诪讝讜谞讜转 诇驻谞讬 讻诇讘 讜讗讬谉 谞讜转谞讬谉 诪讝讜谞讜转 诇驻谞讬 讞讝讬专 讜诪讛 讛驻专砖 讘讬谉 讝讛 诇讝讛 讝讛 诪讝讜谞讜转讬讜 注诇讬讱 讜讝讛 讗讬谉 诪讝讜谞讜转讬讜 注诇讬讱

Rav Yehuda could have said to you: Actually, mehalketin means that one feeds the bird by hand, and malkitin mean that one throws the food before them. And that which was difficult for you: Is throwing food before doves in a dove-cote or doves in an attic also not permitted on Shabbat? This is not difficult because with regard to these chickens and geese that were mentioned, sole responsibility for their sustenance is incumbent upon you as they are incapable of providing for themselves. However, in the case of these doves, responsibility for their sustenance is not incumbent upon you, and therefore, it is prohibited to place food before them, as it was taught in a baraita: One may place sustenance before a dog on Shabbat, but one may not place sustenance before a pig. And what is the difference between this and that? In this case of the dog, responsibility for its sustenance is incumbent upon you, and in that case of the pig, responsibility for its sustenance is not incumbent upon you, as no Jew raises pigs.

讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 诪转谞讬转讬谉 谞诪讬 讚讬拽讗 讗讬谉 谞讜转谞讬谉 诪讬诐 诇驻谞讬 讚讘讜专讬诐 讜诇驻谞讬 讬讜谞讬诐 砖讘砖讜讘讱 讗讘诇 谞讜转谞讬谉 诇驻谞讬 讗讜讜讝讬谉 讜诇驻谞讬 转专谞讙讜诇讬谉 讜诇驻谞讬 讬讜谞讬 讛专讚讬住讬讜转 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诇讗讜 诪砖讜诐 讚讛谞讬 诪讝讜谞讜转谉 注诇讬讱 讜讛谞讬 讗讬谉 诪讝讜谞讜转谉 注诇讬讱

Rav Ashi said: The language of the mishna is also precise in support of this explanation, as we learn: And one may not place water before bees or before doves in a dove-cote because they are capable of finding their own food; however, one may place water before geese and chickens and before hardisian doves. What is the reason for this distinction? Is it not because for these, geese and chickens, responsibility for their sustenance is incumbent upon you, and for those, bees and doves, responsibility for their sustenance is not incumbent upon you?

讜诇讬讟注诪讬讱 诪讗讬 讗讬专讬讗 诪讬讗 讗驻讬诇讜 讞讬讟讬 讜砖注专讬 谞诪讬 诇讗 讗诇讗 砖讗谞讬 诪讬讗 讚砖讻讬讞讬 讘讗讙诪讗

The Gemara rejects this proof: And according to your reasoning, why did the mishna cite a case specifically involving water? Even wheat and barley should also not be permitted. Rather, the reason for the distinction between the halakhot is that water is different because it is found in a lake or in other reservoirs, and therefore one need not exert himself to provide water for bees and doves. That is not the case with the rest of their food.

讚专砖 专讘讬 讬讜谞讛 讗驻讬转讞讗 讚讘讬 谞砖讬讗讛 诪讗讬 讚讻转讬讘 (讬讜讚注) 爪讚讬拽 讚讬谉 讚诇讬诐 讬讜讚注 讛拽讚讜砖 讘专讜讱 讛讜讗 讘讻诇讘 砖诪讝讜谞讜转讬讜 诪讜注讟讬谉 诇驻讬讻讱 砖讜讛讛 讗讻讬诇转讜 讘诪注讬讜 砖诇砖讛 讬诪讬诐 讻讚转谞谉 讻诪讛 转砖讛讛 讗讻讬诇转讜 讘诪注讬讜 讜讬讛讗 讟诪讗 讘讻诇讘 砖诇砖讛 讬诪讬诐 诪注转 诇注转 讜讘注讜驻讜转 讜讘讚讙讬诐 讻讚讬 砖转驻讜诇 诇讗讜专 讜转砖专祝

Returning to the discussion of feeding dogs, the Gemara cites additional statements on the topic. Rabbi Yona taught at the entrance to the house of the Nasi: What is the meaning of that which is written: 鈥淭he righteous man takes knowledge of the cause of the poor鈥 (Proverbs 29:7)? The Holy One, Blessed be He, knows that for a dog, its sustenance is scarce and they are not fed sufficiently. Therefore, its food remains in its intestines for three days so that the dog will be sustained by that food, as we learned in a mishna dealing with the halakhot of ritual impurity: After an animal eats flesh from a corpse, how long does its food remain in its intestines undigested and therefore ritually impure? In the case of a dog it is for three twenty-four hour periods, and for fowl and fish, who digest their food quickly, it is the equivalent of the time it takes for the flesh to fall into the fire and be consumed by the fire.

讗诪专 专讘 讛诪谞讜谞讗 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讗讜专讞 讗专注讗 诇诪砖讚讗 讗讜诪爪讗 诇讻诇讘讗 讜讻诪讛 讗诪专 专讘 诪专讬 诪砖讞 讗讜讚谞讬讛 讜讞讜讟专讗 讗讘转专讬讛 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讘讚讘专讗 讗讘诇 讘诪转讗 诇讗 讚讗转讗 诇诪住专讱 讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 诇讬转 讚注谞讬讗 诪讻诇讘讗 讜诇讬转 讚注转讬专 诪讞讝讬专讗

Rav Hamnuna said: Learn from it: It is the way of the world, i.e., proper conduct, to throw a piece of meat before a dog, as even the Holy One, Blessed be He, concerns Himself with the dog鈥檚 sustenance. The Gemara asks: And how much food should one give to a dog? Rav Mari said: Give it the equivalent of the measure of its ear and strike it immediately thereafter with a staff so that the dog will not grow attached to the one who fed it. This applies specifically when one is in the field, but in the city, one should not give anything to a dog because the dog will be drawn to follow him and remain with him. Rav Pappa said: There is no creature poorer than a dog, and no creature richer than a pig, as pigs will eat anything, and people provide them with plentiful amounts of food.

转谞讬讗 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讬讝讜 讛讬讗 讛诪专讗讛 讜讗讬讝讜 讛讬讗 讛诇注讟讛 讛诪专讗讛 诪专讘讬爪讛 讜驻讜拽住 讗转 驻讬讛 讜诪讗讻讬诇讛 讻专砖讬谞讬谉 讜诪讬诐 讘讘转 讗讞转 讛诇注讟讛 诪讗讻讬诇讛 诪注讜诪讚 讜诪砖拽讛 诪注讜诪讚 讜谞讜转谞讬谉 讻专砖讬谞讬谉 讘驻谞讬 注爪诪谉 讜诪讬诐 讘驻谞讬 注爪诪谉:

With regard to the halakhic ruling, a baraita was taught in accordance with the opinion of Rav Yehuda: What is hamra鈥檃 and what is halata? Hamra鈥檃 is when a person forcibly lays the animal on the ground and forces its mouth open and feeds it vetch and water simultaneously so that the animal will be unable to expel it. Halata is when one feeds the animal while it is standing and gives it to drink while it is standing, i.e., gives it food and drink in the usual manner, and one gives it vetch separately and water separately, to augment what the animal eats on its own.

诪讛诇拽讟讬谉 诇转专谞讙讜诇讬谉 讻讜壮: 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讗诪专讬转讛 拽诪讬讛 讚诪专 诪转谞讬转讬谉 诪谞讬 讜讗诪专 诇讬 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讬讗 讚转谞讬讗 讗讞讚 谞讜转谉 讗转 讛拽诪讞 讜讗讞讚 谞讜转谉 诇转讜讻讜 诪讬诐 讛讗讞专讜谉 讞讬讬讘 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讗讬谞讜 讞讬讬讘 注讚 砖讬讙讘诇

We learned in the mishna: And one may force-feed chickens, and one may add water to bran, but one may not knead the mixture. Abaye said: I said this before my Master, Rabba: Whose opinion is it in the mishna? And he said to me: It is the opinion of Rabbi Yosei bar Yehuda, as it was taught in a baraita: If one person places flour and another one places water into it, the latter is liable to bring a sin-offering for performing the prohibited labor of kneading. This is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. Rabbi Yosei bar Yehuda says: One is only liable when he actually kneads the flour and water together. He is not liable for merely adding water to the flour. This is similar to the ruling of the mishna that one may pour water into the bran but may not knead the mixture.

讚讬诇诪讗 注讚 讻讗谉 诇讗 拽讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专 讬讛讜讚讛 讛转诐 讗诇讗 拽诪讞 讚讘专 讙讬讘讜诇 讛讜讗 讗讘诇 诪讜专住谉 讚诇讗讜 讘专 讙讬讘讜诇 讛讜讗 讗驻讬诇讜 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专 讬讛讜讚讛 诪讜讚讛 诇讗 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讚转谞讬讗 讘讛讚讬讗 讗讬谉 谞讜转谞讬谉 诪讬诐 诇诪讜专住谉 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 谞讜转谞讬谉 诪讬诐 诇诪讜专住谉

The Gemara rejects this: Perhaps Rabbi Yosei bar Yehuda only stated that actual kneading is required to be liable for performing the prohibited labor of kneading in the case of flour, which can be kneaded; however, in the case of bran, which cannot be kneaded into a dough, even Rabbi Yosei bar Yehuda would concede that it is prohibited, even if one does not actually knead the mixture. The Gemara rejects this statement: It should not enter your mind to explain it that way, as it was taught explicitly in a baraita: One may not place water into bran on Shabbat; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. Rabbi Yosei bar Yehuda says: One may place water into bran.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讗讬谉 讙讜讘诇讬谉 讗转 讛拽诇讬 讜讬砖 讗讜诪专讬诐 讙讜讘诇讬谉 诪讗谉 讜讬砖 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗

The Sages taught: On Shabbat, one may not knead sweet flour made from unripe grain that was dried in an oven, and some say: One may knead it. The Gemara asks: Whose is the opinion introduced as: And some say? Rav 岣sda said:

Scroll To Top