THOUGHTS ON THE DAILY DAF
brought to you by Kollel Iyun Hadaf of Har Nof
Rosh Kollel: Rav Mordecai Kornfeld
Ask A Question about the Daf
1) A DONKEY GOING OUT WITH ITS SADDLE PAD
QUESTION: A donkey with a saddle pad ("Marda'as") may be taken into Reshus
ha'Rabim only if the saddle pad was tied to it on Friday, before Shabbos.
If a saddle pad is considered attire (and not a load), what difference does
it make whether it was placed on the donkey before or during Shabbos?
(a) RASHI (54b, DH k'd'Amran) says that one must demonstrate that this
donkey generally wears the saddle pad as its attire. By putting it on the
donkey on Friday (and leaving it there for an extended period of time), one
shows that it is a garment and not just a burden.
(b) TOSFOS (DH v'Hu sh'Keshurah) suggests two other explanations. The first
is that if one ties the saddle pad to the donkey on Shabbos, it looks like
one's intention is to *transport the saddle pad* from one place to another
(which is forbidden), and not merely to take the donkey for a walk.
(c) In his second explanation, TOSFOS (in the name of Rabeinu Poras) says
that tying the saddle pad to the animal on Shabbos gives the appearance
that one intends to take the *animal for a long ride* on Shabbos.
(d) The RASHBA and ROSH cite the Yerushalmi that says that tying on the
saddle-pad is forbidden because of "Mishtamesh b'Ba'alei Chayim." That is,
while tying the saddle pad to the donkey, one leans on the donkey and uses
it, which is forbidden mid'Rabanan on Shabbos.
According to the explanation of the Rashba, that one may not tie the saddle
pad to the donkey on Shabbos because of the problem of "Mishtamesh
b'Ba'alei Chayim," what, then, is the Gemara asking later when it inquires
whether it is permitted to put a saddle pad on a donkey [inside a
courtyard] without intention to take the donkey outside? If putting the
saddle pad on the donkey violates the prohibition against using an animal
on Shabbos, what difference does it make whether it will remain in the
We could answer that the Gemara later does not mean to differentiate
between putting a saddle pad on a donkey that is going *outside*, and
putting a saddle pad on a donkey that is staying *inside*. Rather, the
Gemara is differentiating between *placing* a saddle pad on the donkey, and
*tying* it to the animal. The Gemara wants to know if it is permitted to
*place* a saddle pad on a donkey on Shabbos, because one does not lean on
the animal when he merely places the pad on its back. (M. Kornfeld -- This
answer is supported by the text of our Gemara, which earlier says
"Keshurah" (tied) and later says "Liten" (to place). It is also implicit in
the words of the Me'iri.)
2) CALLING THE COW TO COME HOME
QUESTION: In an attempt to prove that the Rabanan did not uphold their
decrees if it would cause pain to one's animal, the Gemara cites a Beraisa
that says that if a man sees his animal standing outside its Techum, he may
call it to come home, and the Rabanan were not afraid that he might go and
bring the animal with his hands, thus transgressing the Isur of Techumim on
Shabbos. Apparently the Rabanan did not enforce such a decree, since it
would cause the animal to become lost from its owner and to be in pain.
The Gemara answers that this is no proof, because the Beraisa is talking
about a case where the animal's Techum was inside the owner's Techum.
Therefore, he is allowed to call the animal to come home, and there is no
fear that he will go and bring the animal.
The Gemara implies that it is only permitted to *call* the animal home. It
is forbidden to go and *bring* the animal home (by pulling it, or even by
chasing it). Why is it forbidden? And if it is forbidden, why indeed is
there no fear that the person will go bring the animal, instead of just
There are three concerns in this case. (1) A man is not allowed to walk
outside *his Techum*. (2) Any object may not be moved out of the *Techum of
the owner* (or trustee) of that object. Hence, a cow that is given to a
shepherd may only be moved as far as the shepherd can travel. (It does not
matter who is moving it; the limits of an object's Techum are determined by
the Techum of its master.) (3) A man is not allowed to have *his animal do
Melachah* for him on Shabbos because of the Mitzvas Aseh of "Shevisas
Behemto." Perhaps he may also not allow his animal to be leave its Techum
in order to return home, for this reason. (This prohibition would apply
even if the owner does not *take* the animal out of its Techum. It would be
prohibited to *allow* one's animal to leave Techum Shabbos.)
(a) RASHI explains that initially, the Gemara thought that the animal was
outside of the owner's Techum, and the Isur involved was that the owner
would go out of his Techum (#1 above). The animal itself, though, was not
necessarily outside of its Techum.
The Gemara answers that the animal is within the man's Techum, but outside
of its own Techum. So the owner is not allowed to bring the animal to his
home, because he will be taking the shepherd's object (the animal) outside
of the shepherd's Techum (#2 above). But that Isur, explains Rashi, is a
weaker Isur than taking *oneself* out of one's own Techum. For such a weak
Isur, the Rabanan did not make a decree out of fear that one may go and
bring the animal.
Concerning the third concern, that the animal is walking out of his Techum
for the owner's benefit (to bring the animal home), Rashi explains that the
Isur of "Shevisas Behemto" includes only preventing the animal from doing
any of the 39 Melachos. One is permitted, though, to let his animal walk
out of its Techum. Therefore, one is permitted to call the animal, but not
to actively bring it with one's hands (because then he is transgressing #2,
taking the object out of its Techum).
(b) The RITVA explains exactly the opposite from the way that Rashi
explained. Originally, the Gemara thought that the animal was outside of
its own Techum (whether or not it was within the owner's Techum). The only
way to bring it home is by calling it and causing the animal to transgress
the Isur of Techumim (#3 above), by walking outside of its Techum. Even
though the Torah does not prohibit causing an animal to transgress the Isur
of Techumim, the Rabanan prohibited it. However, since it is not such a
strong prohibition, the Rabanan permitted calling it back to its Techum in
order to prevent causing pain to the animal.
Why were the Rabanan not afraid that the owner will take the animal back
home by hand (or by chasing it), transgressing #2 above by taking it out of
its Techum, as well as carrying an object (= the animal) 4 Amos in Reshus
ha'Rabim? It must be that the Rabanan did not enforce decrees when it would
cause pain to an animal. This is the Gemara's attempted proof.
The Gemara answers that the animal is not outside its own Techum, it is
just outside of the *owner's* Techum (like the Gemara's original
understanding according to Rashi). That is why the owner may not make the
animal move by physically going out to the animal and leading or chasing
it, but he may call it to make it move. By calling it, he is not
transgressing any prohibition whatsoever, because the animal is inside of
(If this is the case, there is no fear that the owner will think that it is
also permitted to go out of his Techum to fetch the animal, or that he will
transgress an Isur d'Oraisa by pulling the animal four Amos in Reshus
ha'Rabim. We were only afraid of such a thing happening in the original
scenario, where the Rabanan permitted #3 above for the well-being of the
animal. In the present scenario, since the owner was not permitted to
transgress *any trace of* a rabbinical prohibition, there is no fear that
he will think that it is permitted to do an Isur d'Oraisa or d'Rabanan for