Shabbat 309

יתד באילן ותלה בה כלכלה למעלה מעשרה טפחים אין עירובו עירוב למטה מי' טפחים עירובו עירוב

a peg in a tree and hangs a basket thereon<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And places his 'erub-an 'erub of boundaries (v. Glos.) — in it, intending to spend the Sabbath under the tree. — An 'erub is not valid unless it is accessible on the Sabbath. ');">¹</span>

טעמא דנעץ יתד באילן הא לא נעץ אפילו למטה מי' טפחים אין עירובו עירוב והא האי תנא דקאסר בצדדין וקשרי בצדי צדדין

above ten handbreadths [from the ground], his 'erub is not an 'erub;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because a basket is generally four handbreadths square, and if it is ten from the ground it is technically a private domain (cf. supra 6a), whereas the ground below is a public domain, and so one must not take the 'erub from the basket; hence it is not accessible. ');">²</span>

אמר רב פפא הכא בכלכלה דחוקה עסקינן דבהדי דשקיל ליה לעירוב קמניד ליה לאילן וקמשמש באילן גופיה והלכתא צדדין אסורין צדי צדדין מותרין

below ten handbreadths, his 'erub is an 'erub. Thus it is only because he fixed a peg in the tree, but if he did not, even if it is below ten handbreadths his 'erub is not an 'erub.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., if he merely tied the basket to the tree. The 'erub is invalid because in order to get at it he must make use of the side of the tree; where it is hanging on a peg, however, he only makes indirect use of the sides. ');">³</span>

אמר רב אשי השתא דאמרת צדדין אסורין האי דרגא דמדלא לא לינחיה איניש אדיקלא דהוו להו צדדין אלא לינחיה אגוואזי לבר מדיקלא וכי סליק לא לינח כרעיה אגוואזי אלא ליתנח אקנין:

Thus this Tanna forbids the sides yet permits the indirect use of the sides? — Said R. Papa: Here we treat of a narrow-mouthed basket, so that in taking out the 'erub he sways the tree, and thus makes use of the tree itself. Now the law is that the sides are forbidden, but the sides of the sides are permitted. R. Ashi said: Now that you have ruled that the sides are forbidden, one must not rest the lodge-ladder<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A ladder for ascending to a lodge set high up on poles near a tree. ');">⁴</span>

<big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> מתירין פקיעי עמיר לפני בהמה ומפספסין את הכיפין אבל לא את הזירין אין מרסקין לא את השחת ולא את החרובין לפני בהמה בין דקה ובין גסה רבי יהודה מתיר בחרובין לדקה:

on the palm tree, because that is tantamount to the [use of the] sides [of the trees;]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' When he ascends on the Sabbath. ');">⁵</span>

<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> אמר רב הונא הן הן פקיעין הן הן כיפין פקיעין תרי כיפין תלתא זירין דארזי וה"ק מתירין פקיעי עמיר לפני בהמה ומפספסין והוא הדין לכיפין אבל לא את הזירין לא לפספס ולא להתיר אמר רב חסדא מאי טעמא דרב הונא קא סבר למטרח באוכלא טרחינן לשויי אוכלא לא משוינן

but he must rest it on pegs without the tree,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., pegs driven into the tree (Rashi). Jast.: on the branches spreading beyond the circumference of the tree. ');">⁶</span>

רב יהודה אמר הן הן פקיעין הן הן זירין פקיעין תרי זירין תלתא כיפין דארזי וה"ק מתירין פקיעי עמיר לפני בהמה אבל פספוסי לא וכיפין פספוסי נמי מפספסינן אבל לא הזירין לפספס אלא להתיר אמר רבא מאי טעמא דרבי יהודה קסבר שווי אוכלא משוינן מטרח באוכלא לא טרחינן

and when he ascends he should place his foot not on the pegs but on the rungs.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Or, on the canes protruding from the poles on which the lodge is built. ');">⁷</span>

תנן אין מרסקין את השחת ואת החרובין לפני בהמה בין דקה ובין גסה מאי לאו חרובין דומיא דשחת מה שחת דרכיכי אף חרובין דרכיכי אלמא לא טרחינן באוכלא ותיובתיה דרב הונא

<b><i>MISHNAH</i></b>. BUNDLES [PEKI'IN] OF SHEAVES MAY BE UNTIED FOR CATTLE AND BUNCHES [KIPPIN] MAY BE SPREAD OUT, BUT NOT SMALL BUNDLES [ZIRIN].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The Gemara discusses the exact meaning of the terms used. ');">⁸</span>

אמר לך רב הונא לא שחת דומיא דחרובין מה חרובין דאקושי אף שחת דאקושי היכי משכחת לה בעילי זוטרי

NEITHER FODDER<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Shahath is corn not fully grown as fodder. ');">⁹</span>

ת"ש רבי יהודה מתיר בחרובין לדקה לדקה אין לגסה לא אי אמרת בשלמא ת"ק סבר מיטרח באוכלא לא טרחינן שווי משוינן היינו דקא אמר ר' יהודה החרובין לדקה נמי שווי אוכלא הוא אלא אי אמרת ת"ק סבר שווי אוכלא לא משוינן מיטרח באוכלא מטרחינן רבי יהודה דמתיר בחרובין לדקה כל שכן לגסה

NOR CAROBS MAY BE CHOPPED UP FOR CATTLE, WHETHER SMALL OR LARGE;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 'Small cattle' — sheep, goats, calves, etc.; large — cows and oxen. ');">¹⁰</span>

מי סברת דקה דקה ממש מאי דקה גסה ומאי קרי לה דקה דדייקא באוכלא

R. JUDAH PERMITS IN THE CASE OF CAROBS FOR SMALL CATTLE.

הא מדקתני רישא בין דקה ובין גסה מכלל דרבי יהודה דקה דקה ממש קאמר קשיא

<b><i>GEMARA</i></b>. R. Huna said: PEKI'IN and KIPPIN are identical, [save that] peki'in are two [bunches tied together], while kippin are three; zirin are young shoots of cedar trees.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cut from the tree. While yet moist they are fit for fodder, though most people leave them to dry for fuel. ');">¹¹</span>

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