ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous dafShabbos 53
(a) One may not allow one's animal to go out into the street with
accessories which are not tied, because they might fall off, and we are
afraid that the owner will then pick them up and carry them in the Reshus
(b) The Mishnah writes 'Ein ha'Chamor Yotzei be'Merda'as, bi'Zeman
she'Einah Keshurah Lo'. Now we do not need a Mishnah to inform us that the
donkey should not be allowed to go out with the saddle-cloth loose, because
we already know about the fear that what is not tied, may fall off etc.
What the Mishnah must therefore mean is that one should not allow the
donkey to go out with its saddle-cloth not tied on - already *before*
Shabbos (i.e. it is too late to tie it on now).
(c) No! The Tana Kama of the Beraisa maintains that one may *not* allow a
donkey to go with a saddle in the street, even if it is tied, because a
saddle is a burden.
(d) u'Vilevad she'Lo Yikshor Lo Masrichan' refers to a sort of strap that
one ties around its chest and on to the load that it is carrying, to
prevent the load from sliding back towards its tail, when it climbs uphill;
and 'u'Vilevad she'Lo Yifshol Lo Retzu'ah', to a strap that one ties below
its tail, and to the load that it is carrying, to prevent it from slipping
on to its neck, when it walks *down* a steep slope.
Both of these are forbidden so that people will not say that the owner
intends to place a load on the donkey's back on Shabbos.
(a) When they asked Rav Chiya bar Ashi what the difference was between a
saddle-cloth and a saddle - with regard to placing them on the donkey's
back on Shabbos, he did not answer.
(b) They translated his silence to mean that one may even put a saddle in
place on Shabbos too; to which they responded by asking from the Beraisa,
which expressly forbids even the *removal* of a saddle on Shabbos, how much
more so *putting it it is place*?
(c) 'Leave him', said Rebbi Zeira. 'He holds like his Rebbi - Rav' (who
permits placing even a food-bag - which is purely for the donkey's
*convenience*, and is quite dispensable; how much more so a saddle, which
is a *necessity* as far as the donkey is concerned, because a dankey is
cold for twelve months of the year.
(d) One removes a saddle on Shabbos by taking the donkey into the
courtyard, and untying it, to let it fall by itself.
(a) When Shmuel heard that Rav permitted placing a Teraskal around the
donkey's neck on Shabbos, he exclaimed that 'if that is what Aba really
said, then he knows nothing about Shabbos'.
(b) Shmuel referred to Rav as 'Aba', because he was his friend - which is
one of the meanings of 'Aba'.
(c) Rebbi Binyamin bar Yefes quoted Rebbi Yochanan as saying that one may
put a saddle-cloth on a donkey on Shabbos, but not a food-bag. Rebbi Zeira
gave him a 'Yasher Ko'ach', since that is precisely what Shmuel said in
(d) 'Aryoch' refers to Shmuel, who was an expert in all money matters, and
would judge with the authority of a King - 'Aryoch' is a derivative of
'Reicha', which means 'a King' (similar to the Latin word 'Rex' - See also,
(a) It is forbidden to remove a saddle, because it is possible to let it
fall off by itself, as we wrote above; and, in addition, the purpose of
removing it is for the animal to get cold - a donkey does not need the
incentive of having its saddle removed, since it is cold all the year
(b) Since the Beraisa forbids foals to go out *into the street* with a
Teraskal tied around its neck, we can infer that it is permitted to do so
in a courtyard. In that case, how can Shmuel forbid it?
(c) Shmuel answers this Kashya by establishing the Beraisa by *young*
foals, for whom a Teraskal is not only a convenience, but a necessity -
since, due to their short necks and long legs, they have difficulty in
bending down to eat from the ground, in which case it is permitted (like
the saddle-cloth of a donkey).
(a) The purpose of hanging ...
1. ... a fox's tail between a horse's eyes is to counteract 'Ayin ha'Ra'.
(b) It is forbidden to go with them into the street on Shabbos.
2. ... a red thread between the horse's eyes is a form of ornament.
(c) A Zav is forbidden to carry his bag into the street, as is a horse
with its shoe (which is presumably detachable) and an animal wearing a
But a man wearing a Kemei'a which is proven, an animal wearing something
which covers its wound, a splint for its broken bone or with a placenta
that has partially emerged (which presumably, the owner is unlikely to pick
up and carry, should it fall out), *may*.
(d) The latter list is more lenient than the former, since they are needed
to protect the animal, and one is unlikely to come to carry them, since
there is no reason to assume that they will fall off.
(e) An animal is permitted to go with a bell around its neck in the
courtyard (but not in the street), provided the striker has been removed.
(a) An animal, like a person, is permitted to go out with a Kamei'a which
is proven to work for animals. When the Beraisa forbids it 'Af Al Pi she'Hu
Mumcheh', it means 'Mumcheh' for a person, because a Kemei'a that has been
proven for a person is not necessarily proven for an animal.
(b) We cannot explain the Beraisa to mean that even if the Kamei'a is
proven for animals, it is forbidden, since we have learnt in another
Beraisa that then it is permitted.
(c) Chazal have said that 'Adam Is Lei Mazla' - meaning that he has a
certain protection (possibly the two angels who constantly accompany him);
whereas 'Beheimah Les Lei Mazla'. Consequently, a Kamei'a which is proven
for a person, is not necessarily proven for animals.
(d) When the Beraisa writes 'Zeh Chomer bi'Veheimah mi'be'Adam', it is
referring , not to the Din of Kamei'a, but to that of a shoe, with which a
human may go out, but not an animal.
1. 'Ein Sachin u'Mefarchesin' means that one is not permitted to anoint
an animal with oil, or to rub the scabs of its wound, but the Beraisa is
speaking, not *before* the wound has healed (in which case it would be
permitted to do this - to alleviate the pain), but *afterwards*, and the
purpose of the treatment is for the animal's pleasure.
(b) Rav has no way of explaining the Beraisa of 'Ein Sachin' etc. (which
certainly forbids anointing - either (even) *during* the wound stage, or
(specifically) *after* the wound has healed) to conform with his opinion in
Teraskel, which he permits because of pleasure.
2. And 'Beheimah she'Achzo Dam, Ein Ma'amidin Osah be'Mayim Bishevil
she'Titztanen' - is forbidden because it is a cure, and cures are forbidden
(even with regard to animals) because of the decree of 'Shechikas
Samemanim' - that one may come to grind the necessary medicines on Shabbos
(a decree that applies equally, to animals' cures).
Therefore the Gemara is forced to resort to the answer; 'Rav Tana Hu u'Palig'.
(c) It is permitted for a *person* to stand in cold water when he has
diarrhea, because it is not evident that he is doing this as a cure; he
could just as well be doing it to cool down (which would be permitted).
Whereas by an animal, it is evident that it is being stood in the water as
a cure, and is therefore forbidden.
(a) If even decrees which involve a loss (such as not not being to stand
one's sick animal in water, for fear that he may come to grind medicines)
pertain to animals too, then why does the Beraisa permit one to call his
animal from outside the Techum, where it has strayed? Why do we not decree
there too, that the owner might leave the Techum, to go and fetch it?
(b) That Beraisa, answers the Gemara, is speaking in a case where the
animal had strayed from the Techum of the shepherd in whose charge it was
(and whose Techum it follows), but was still within that of the owner.
Consequently, the concern that the owner might leave his Techum to fetch
his animal, is non-existent.
(c) Alternatively, whether or not, such decrees pertain to one's animals
(i.e. whether we go so far as to suspect that a Jew might break the Shabbos
for the sake of his animal), is a Machlokes Tana'im. Rebbi Yashiyah
disagrees with the Tana Kama of the Beraisa who forbids one to allow one's
animal to run around the courtyard on Shabbos in order to loosen its
bowels, because of the decree of grinding medicines. *He* permits it.
Consequently, Rebbi Yashiyah will be the author of the Beraisa who permits
the owner to call his animal from outside the Techum - even *his own*
(a) The Beraisa permits one to allow a goat to go out with a bag tied
around its teats provided it is tied tightly - so that we need not worry
that the bag may fall off, and he will come to carry it.
(b) The author of both Beraisos could be Rebbi Yehudah; the Beraisa which
*forbids* goats to go out is speaking when the bag is tied there to receive
the milk which drips from the teats, in which case it is a burden and is
forbidden (see Tosfos, d.h. 'Ka'n', and see Rashi at the foot of 52b, who
seems to contradict himself); whereas the Beraisa which *permits*, is
speaking about a bag which is tied tightly (to cause the milk to dry up),
where the reasons to forbid it do not apply, as we discussed in our
(a) Abaye claimed that for a man to breast-feed his own baby (when Hashem
could just as well have performed a 'natural' miracle - by providing him
with the means for paying for a wet-nurse), is not praiseworthy, but
degrading (because it detracts heavily from the reward due to him for good
deeds, as we learnt above in 'Bameh Madlikin' - Agados Maharsha).
(b) Rav Yehudah commented that we can see from here how difficult Parnasah
is (how hard Hashem has to work - Kevayachol - ['ki'Keri'as Yam-Suf]) to
provide everyone with Parnasah, since he preferred to change nature for
this man (rather than provide him with Parnasah in a more natural way). Rav
Nachman added that we can learn the same lesson from the lives of Tzadikim,
for whom Hashem often provides their needs in a miraculous way, rather than
to simply order food to appear in their storehouses.
(c) Rebbi Chiya commented about that lame woman, that it was not the woman
who who was praiseworthy (since both due to the fact that women are
generally more modest than men, and because this woman in particular, had
every reason to hide her deformity), but the man, who lived all those years
with his wife, and never discovered that she was lame.
(a) "Libavtini Achosi Kalah" is the words of Hashem to Yisrael, and it
means that Yisrael brought Hashem close to them, by virtue of their
'Levuvin' in the Mishnah too, has the connotation of closeness, because it
refers to two rams who are tied together, to prevent them from running away.
(b) According to Ula, 'Levuvin' (from the word 'Lev') refers to a piece of
leather which they would place over the ram's heart, to prevent the wolves
from attacking it (because wolves tend to go for the rams' hearts).
The Mishnah writes specifically rams (and not ewes), because the rams stick
their noses in the air, and look from side to side, conveying the
impression that the rams are about to attack *them*. So they attack first.
(c) The reason that the wolves attack specifically the rams, cannot be
ascribed to the fact they go at the head of the flock, because who says
that the wolves confine their attacks to the head of the flock? Sometimes
they attack from the back?
Nor can it be because the rams are fatter, because that is not always the
case. Sometimes, it is the ewes which are fatter?
(a) The Gemara prefers Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak's interpretation of
'Levuvin' (that it is a piece of leather tied underneath their male organs
to prevent them from going on the females), because then it is similar to
the 'Shechuzos' of the ewes (which is the next case mentioned in the
Mishnah). 'Shechuzos' means with their tails tied on to their backs
(leaving their female organs revealed), to encourage the males to come on
(b) The Gemara proves from the Pasuk "ve'Hinei Ishah Likeraso Shis Zonah
u'Netzuras Lev", that 'Shechuzos' means 'revealed', since that is the
acronym of "Shis Zonah".