ושמואל אמר הלכה כרבי שמעון ואף זעירי סבר הלכה כר"ש דתנן בהמה שמתה לא יזיזנה ממקומה ותרגמא זעירי בבהמת קדשים אבל בחולין שפיר דמי ואף רבי יוחנן אמר הלכה כר"ש ומי א"ר יוחנן הכי והא א"ר יוחנן הלכה כסתם משנה ותנן
<b><i>GEMARA</i></b>. It was stated: (Mnemonic: <i>'aReL SHaHaZ</i>).<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 110, n. 1. '='Ulla; R = Rab; L = Levi; SH = SHemuel (Samuel); H = Johanan; Z = Ze'iri.
');"><sup>17</sup></span> 'Ulla said; the <i>halachah</i> is as R. Judah. And Rab too holds [that] the <i>halachah</i> is as R. Judah; [this follows] from ship mattings,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra 19b.
');"><sup>18</sup></span> which Rab forbids while Samuel permits. And Levi too holds [that] the <i>halachah</i> is as R. Judah. For when a <i>terefah</i> was brought before him on a Festival,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., when a doubt arose whether an animal was terefah (v. Glos.).
');"><sup>19</sup></span> he would not inspect it save when he sat by a dunghill, for he said, perhaps it will not be found fit, in which case it is of no use even for dogs. But Samuel maintained: The <i>halachah</i> is as R. Simeon.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who permits mukzeh.
');"><sup>20</sup></span> And Ze'iri too holds [that] the <i>halachah</i> is as R. Simeon, for we learnt: If an animal dies, it must not be moved from its place: and Ze'iri interpreted this as referring to a sacred animal,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., one sanctified for a sacrifice. When it dies all benefit thereof is forbidden and it may not even be thrown to the dogs. Hence it is mukzeh on Festivals, with which this deals.
');"><sup>21</sup></span> but in the case of an ordinary animal it is permitted.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It can be thrown to the dogs. and is therefore not mukzeh. ');"><sup>22</sup></span> R. Johanan too said, The <i>halachah</i> is as R. Simeon. Yet did R. Johanan say thus: Surely R. Johanan ruled, The <i>halachah</i> is as an anonymous Mishnah. and we learnt:
Teshuvot haRashba part IV
You have asked: Is it permitted to crumble pieces of bread to feed chickens on Shabbat? Should one be concerned about tehina (alt. “tohen”; grinding/milling/pulverizing, one of the types of labor prohibited on Shabbat), or not? It stands to reason that it is permitted, since we maintain that one may render something into food. We further learn in a mishna (Shabbat 156b): “Gourds may be chopped up for livestock….” This applies not only to livestock, for which large pieces suffice, but also to fowl, since any manner of turning it into food is permitted. The mishna simply spoke of the normal case. Yet, it have a difficulty with this based on what is stated in the chapter “Klal Gadol” (Shabbat 74b): “One who dices beets (paris silka) very fine is liable on account of tohen.” If we attempt to answer that in this case it was not for the needs of that day, but to prepare to cook it that evening—as Maimonides states: “One who dices a vegetable very finely in order to cook it, has violated a tolada of tohen.” This demands explanation: if this is truly tohen, how can we permit a type of labor that the Torah forbids for the sake of fowl and livestock? Similarly, regarding Maimonides’s ruling: “Therefore, one may not chop up carobs or unripe grain to place before livestock, whether large or small, since it resembles tohen. But one may chop up gourds for livestock and a carcass for dogs, because tohen does not apply to fruits.” I do not understand his opinion. Indeed, in Shabbat (155a), it is implied that the reason that one may not chop up carobs is because “we may not expend effort on food,” for carobs here are like unripe grain according to Rav, whose opinion we accept. Moreover, what does [Maimonides] mean by “tohen does not apply to fruits”? The quintessential tohen is of fruits like wheat and barley. And carobs are themselves fruits, so how could he say that this “resembles tohen”? Arukh explained “paris silka” as “like pressing, and it is not similar to the way it grows.” And regarding R. Alfasi (=Rif)’s explanation of one who dices beets—that the rationale is due to fine flour—the rabbi and kohen wrote that this requires explanation, for wood is no worse than beets.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy