Commentary for Shabbat 309:13

תא שמע מחתכין

And this is what he [the Tanna] teaches: BUNDLES [PEKI'IN] OF SHEAVES MAY BE UNTIED FOR CATTLE, AND THEY MAY BE SPREAD, and the same applies to KIPPIN, BUT NOT TO ZIRIN, which may neither be spread out nor untied — R. Hisda said, What is R. Huna's reason? He holds that we may indeed take trouble over [natural] foodstuffs,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Such as bundles of sheaves. ');">¹²</span> but we may not turn something into foodstuffs.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Such as young shoots which are normally intended for fuel. ');">¹³</span> Rab Judah said: Peki'in and zirin are identical, [save that] peki'in are two [bunches tied together], whilst Zirin are three; kippin are young cedar shoots. And this is what he teaches: BUNDLES [PEKI'IN] OF SHEAVES MAYBE UNTIED FOR CATTLE, but not spread out, but as for KIPPIN, [THEY] MAY [INDEED] BE SPREAD OUT; BUT NOT ZIRIN, [which it is not permitted] to spread out but [merely] to untie. Raba said, What is Rab Judah's reason? He holds that we may indeed turn something into fodder, but may not take trouble over fodder.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' When the bundles are tied they are not fit for fodder, therefore they may be untied; but it is superfluous indulgence to spread them out, and that is forbidden. Bunches of young shoots, however, are unfit for fodder unless they are spread out; hence it is permitted. ');">¹⁴</span> We learnt: NEITHER FODDER NOR CAROBS MAY BE CHOPPED UP FOR CATTLE, WHETHER SMALL OR LARGE: [Surely it means] carobs like fodder: just as fodder is soft, so are soft carobs meant, thus proving that we may not take trouble over [what is] foodstuff [in any case], which refutes R. Huna? — R. Huna can answer you: No: fodder like carobs: just as carobs are hard, so hard fodder<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' E.g., if the corn has gone dry. ');">¹⁵</span> is meant.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Without being cut up they are altogether unfit; hence they may not be cut up. ');">¹⁶</span> Where is that possible?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That unless cut up they are unfit. — Generally animals can eat them even when hard. ');">¹⁷</span> In the case of very young foals. Come and hear: R. JUDAH PERMITS IN THE CASE OF CAROBS FOR SMALL CATTLE. Thus, only for small but not for large: now it is well if you agree that the first Tanna holds that we may not take trouble over foodstuffs, yet we may turn [something] into foodstuffs: hence R. Judah argues [that cutting up] carobs for small cattle is also [an act of] turning [it] into fodder. But if you maintain that the first Tanna holds that we may not turn [aught] into fodder, yet we may take trouble over fodder, then R. JUDAH PERMITS IN THE CASE OF CAROBS FOR SMALL CATTLE [only]? all the more so for large cattle!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since carobs are fit in any case, but are more easily eaten when cut up. 'All the more so' because if they are fit in their present state for small cattle, they are certainly fit for large. ');">¹⁸</span> — Do you think that dakkah [small] is literally meant? [No] By dakkah large cattle is meant, yet why is it called dakkah? Because it grinds [dayyka] its food.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Chewing it until it is finely cut up. ');">¹⁹</span> But since the first clause states, WHETHER SMALL OR LARGE, it follows that R. Judah means literally small? This is indeed a difficulty. Come and hear: One may cut up

Explore commentary for Shabbat 309:13. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.