Shabbat 308

ואפי' למ"ד לוקין ליכתוב רחמנא לא תעשה כל מלאכה ובהמתך אתה למה לי הוא ניהו דמיחייב בהמתו לא מיחייב:

And even on the view that we do flagellate [in such a case],<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Mak. 13b. ');">¹</span>

הגיע לחצר החיצונה: אמר רב הונא היתה בהמתו טעונה כלי זכוכית מביא כרים וכסתות ומניח תחתיה ומתיר החבלים והשקין נופלים

let the Divine Law write, 'Thou shalt not do any work nor thy cattle': why state 'thou'? [To teach:] only [when] he personally [works] is he liable, but [if] his animal works, he is not liable.

והאנן תנן נוטל את הכלים הניטלין בשבת

WHEN HE REACHES THE OUTERMOST COURTYARD, etc. R. Huna said: If his animal is laden with glassware, he brings mattresses and pillows, places [them] under it, unties the cords, and the sacks fall off. But we learnt: HE REMOVES THE OBJECTS WHICH MAY BE HANDLED ON THE SABBATH?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Glassware may be handled. ');">²</span>

כי קאמר רב הונא בקרני דאומנא דלא חזיא ליה והא קא מבטל כלי מהיכנו בשליפי זוטרי

— R. Huna spoke of surgeon's horns,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Used in bleeding. ');">³</span>

מיתיבי היתה בהמתו טעונה טבל ועששיות מתיר את החבלים והשקין נופלין ואע"פ שמשתברין התם בכולסא דיקא נמי דקתני דומיא דטבל מה טבל דלא חזי ליה אף הכא נמי לא חזי ליה

which are not fit for him.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For handling on the Sabbath. ');">⁴</span>

ומאי אע"פ שמשתברין מהו דתימא להפסד מועט נמי חששו קמ"ל

But he makes a utensil lose its readiness [for use]?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra 43a. These pillows, etc. may be handled, but not when the sacks fall upon them. ');">⁵</span>

תניא ר"ש בן יוחי אומר היתה בהמתו טעונה שליף של תבואה מניח ראשו תחתיה ומסלקו לצד אחר והוא נופל מאליו

— The reference is to small bags.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The pillows can be pulled away from under them — which is permitted — without hurt, as they have not far to fall. ');">⁶</span>

חמורו של רבן גמליאל היתה טעונה דבש ולא רצה לפורקה עד מוצאי שבת למוצאי שבת מתה והאנן תנן נוטל כלים הניטלין כשהדביש הדביש למאי חזי לכתיתא דגמלי

An objection is raised: If one's animal is laden with <i>tebel</i> or glass balls,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The word denotes lumps of glass. lanterns, etc. ');">⁷</span>

ויתיר חבלים ויפלו שקין מיצטרו זיקי ויביא כרים וכסתות ויניח תחתיהן מטנפי וקמבטל כלי מהיכנו והאיכא צער בעלי חיים קסבר צער בעלי חיים דרבנן

he must untie the cords and the sacks fall off, though they are broken? — There it treats of glass lumps.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which may be broken without loss. ');">⁸</span>

אביי אשכחיה ליה לרבה דקא משפשף ליה לבריה אגבא דחמרא א"ל קא משתמש מר בבעלי חיים א"ל צדדין הן וצדדין לא גזרו בהו רבנן מנא תימרא דתנן מתיר חבלים והשקין נופלין מאי לאו בחבר גוולקי דהוו להו צדדין וצדדין לא גזרו בהו רבנן

This may be proved too, for it is taught analogous to <i>tebel</i>: just as <i>tebel</i> is of no use to him, so here too [it means something] that is of no use to him. Then why state, 'though they are broken'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Seeing that no loss is incurred. ');">⁹</span>

לא בחבר אגלווקי דלא הוו צדדין אי נמי בלכתא

— You might say that they [the Sages] were concerned even about a trifling loss: hence he informs us [otherwise].

איתיביה שתים בידי אדם ואחת באילן כשרה ואין עולין לה ביו"ט מאי לאו דחק ביה באילן דהוו להו צדדין וצדדין אסורין

It was taught R. Simeon b. Yohai said: If the animal is laden with a bag of corn,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of tebel. ');">¹⁰</span>

לא דכפייה לאילן ואנח סיכוך עילויה דקמשמש באילן א"ה אימא סיפא שלש בידי אדם ואחת באילן כשרה ועולין לה ביו"ט ואי דכפייה לאילן אמאי עולין לה ביו"ט

one places his head under it and moves it to the other side, so that it falls off automatically. R. Gamaliel's ass was laden with honey, but he would not unload it until the termination of the Sabbath. On the termination of the Sabbath it died. But we learnt: HE REMOVES THE OBJECTS WHICH MAY BE HANDLED?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which includes honey. ');">¹¹</span>

ואלא מאי צדדין אסורין סוף סוף אמאי עולין לה בי"ט אלא התם בגואזא פרסכנא דאילן גופיה דופן בעלמא הוא דשוויה דיקא נמי דקתני זה הכלל כל אילו שינטל האילן ויכולה לעמוד עולין לה ביו"ט ש"מ

— It had gone rancid. If it had gone rancid, of what use was it?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Why did he trouble to bring it at all? ');">¹²</span>

לימא כתנאי אין עולין לה ביו"ט רשב"א אומר משום ר"מ עולין לה ביו"ט מאי לאו בהא קמיפלגי דמ"ס צדדין אסורין ומר סבר מותרין

— For camels' sores.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Caused by the chafing of the saddle. ');">¹³</span>

אמר אביי לא דכ"ע צדדין אסורין והכא בצדי צדדין קמיפלגי מ"ס צדי צדדין אסורין ומ"ס צדי צדדין מותרין

Then he should have untied the cords so that the sacks would fall off? — The gourds [containers] would burst — Then he should have brought mattresses and pillows and placed them beneath them? — They would become soiled<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If any of the honey were spilt. ');">¹⁴</span>

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