Related%20passage for Shabbat 308:17

רבא אמר מאן דאסר בצדדין אסר נמי בצדי צדדין מאן דשרי בצדי צדדין שרי נמי בצדדין איתיביה רב משרשיא לרבא נעץ

and he would deprive a utensil of its readiness [for use]. But there was suffering of dumb animals? — He holds that the suffering of dumb animals is [only] Rabbinically [forbidden].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This may seem non-humane, but it must be borne in mind that this was held long before other peoples gave the slightest consideration to animals. Cf. p. 640, n. 2 and p. 577, n. 6. ');">¹⁵</span> Abaye found Rabbah letting his son glide down the back of an ass.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To amuse him. ');">¹⁶</span> Said he to him, You are making use of dumb creatures [on the Sabbath]? — It is but on the sides [of the animal], he replied, and in that case the Rabbis did not impose an interdict.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It is not the normal way of employing an animal. ');">¹⁷</span> How do you know it? — Because we learnt: HE UNTIES THE CORDS AND THE SACKS FALL OFF AUTOMATICALLY. Does that not refer to a pair of coupled haversacks?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Coupled or tied together by a cord, a sack hanging down from each side of the animal. To make them fall one would have to lift them off and lean and rub against the animal in doing so which is making use of its sides. Hence this shows that it is permitted. ');">¹⁸</span> No: a balanced load is meant;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Each sack being separately attached to a ring by a hook; a slight jerk would suffice. to unhook it, and he would not make use of the animal. V. Jast s.v. [H]j. ');">¹⁹</span> alternatively, it means where [the sacks are fastened] by a bolt.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A wooden cross-bar which can easily be pulled out, letting the sacks drop. ');">²⁰</span> He raised an objection: If two [walls] are [made] by man and a third is on a tree, it is valid, but one must not ascend [enter] therein on the Festival.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Suk. 22a. A sukkah (q.v. Glos.) requires three walls only. Now if two are erected in the normal fashion, whilst the third is made of a tree (this may mean either that the tree constitutes the third wall or that the third wall is fastened to the tree), the sukkah is valid. Nevertheless, one may not enter it on the Festival itself but only during the intermediate days. For the roof is attached to the tree and various utensils, etc., were hung on the roof; thus indirectly one would be using the tree itself, which is forbidden on Festivals. 'Ascending' is mentioned because the sukkah was often built above the ground, e.g., on a roof (Rashi). ');">²¹</span> Does that not mean that one made grooves on the tree,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 'Wherein he fitted the third wall. — This assumes the second of the two meanings in n. 1. ');">²²</span> so that it is the sides [only that would be used], and thus the sides are forbidden? — No: It means that he bent over [the branches of] the tree and placed the roofing — upon it, so that he makes use of the tree. If so, consider the second clause: If three are made by man and a fourth is in a tree, it is valid, and one may ascend therein on the Festival. But if he bent over the tree, why may he ascend therein on the Festival?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' He still makes use of the tree, in spite of the other three walls. ');">²³</span> — Then what would you: that the sides are forbidden,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' You wish to adhere to your original hypothesis, whence this follows. ');">²⁴</span> — then still the question remains: why may one ascend therein on the Festival? But there it treats of spreading branches, and the tree itself was merely made a wall.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the thick branches were allowed to form a fourth wall, the sukkah coming right up to them, but the roofing rested on the three other walls, not on the branches. The previous answer could have been retained, viz., that he bent over the branches of the tree, but rested the roofing on the other three walls. Since however a fourth wall is not required at all, it is assumed that one would not go to this trouble unless he meant the roofing to rest upon it (Rashi). ');">²⁵</span> This may be proved too, for he states, This is the general rule: wherever it [the <i>sukkah</i>] can stand if the tree were removed, one may ascend therein on the Festival.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That is the reason of the second clause quoted above. Hence it must be assumed that the sukkah is so made that the roofing does not rest on the tree at all, as otherwise it could not stand if the tree were removed. ');">²⁶</span> This proves it. Shall we say that this is dependent on Tannaim? [For it was taught.] One may not ascend therein on the Festival; R. Simeon b. Eleazar said in R. Meir's name: One may ascend therein on the Festival. Is that not [to be explained] that they differ in this, viz., one Master holds: The sides are forbidden; while the other Master holds: The sides are permitted?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Assuming that grooves were made in the tree etc., as above. ');">²⁷</span> — Said Abaye, No: All hold that the sides are forbidden, but here they differ in respect of the sides of the sides:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The laths or canes fitted in the grooves are the sides, whilst the roofing which rests on the laths are the sides of the sides. I.e., they differ as to whether one may make indirect use of the sides. ');">²⁸</span> one Master holds: The sides of the sides are forbidden; while the other Master holds: The sides of the sides are permitted. Raba maintained: He who forbids the sides forbids the sides of the sides too, while he who permits the sides of the sides permits the sides too. R. Mesharsheya raised an objection to Raba: If one drives

Explore related%20passage for Shabbat 308:17. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.