יָתֵד בָּאִילָן וְתָלָה בָּהּ כַּלְכַּלָּה. לְמַעְלָה מֵעֲשָׂרָה טְפָחִים — אֵין עֵירוּבוֹ עֵירוּב. לְמַטָּה מֵעֲשָׂרָה טְפָחִים — עֵירוּבוֹ עֵירוּב. a stake in a tree and hung a four-by-four handbreadth basket from it into which he placed the food for his joining of the Shabbat boundaries, if the basket was above ten handbreadths from the ground, his eiruv is not a valid eiruv. It is prohibited for him to take the bread from the basket on Shabbat, because the basket’s area and height render it a private domain, and he is standing in a different domain. If the basket was below ten handbreadths from the ground, his eiruv is a valid eiruv.
טַעְמָא דְּנָעַץ יָתֵד בָּאִילָן, הָא לֹא נָעַץ, אֲפִילּוּ לְמַטָּה מֵעֲשָׂרָה טְפָחִים אֵין עֵירוּבוֹ עֵירוּב. וְהָא הַאי תַּנָּא דְּקָאָסַר בִּצְדָדִין, וְקָשָׁרֵי בְּצִדֵּי צְדָדִין! The Gemara examines this statement: The reason for this distinction between above and below ten handbreadths is specifically because he drove a stake into a tree and hung the basket from it. However, if he did not drive a stake into a tree, but tied the basket to the tree itself, even if it was below ten handbreadths from the ground his eiruv is not a valid eiruv. If he were to take the bread from the basket he would be making use of the sides of the tree, which is prohibited on Shabbat. And isn’t it the case that this is the tanna who prohibits using the sides of the tree, and nevertheless, he permits using the sides of the sides, contrary to Rava’s opinion?
אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: הָכָא בְּכַלְכַּלָּה דְּחוּקָה עָסְקִינַן, דְּבַהֲדֵי דְּשָׁקֵיל לֵיהּ לְעֵירוּב — קָמְנַיֵּד לֵיהּ לְאִילָן, וְקָמִשְׁתַּמֵּשׁ בְּאִילָן גּוּפֵיהּ. וְהִלְכְתָא: צְדָדִין אֲסוּרִין, צִדֵּי צְדָדִין מוּתָּרִין. Rav Pappa said: Here, we are dealing with a narrow-mouthed basket that is tightly tied to the tree. Since it is difficult to remove anything from it, when he takes the bread for the eiruv he moves the tree, and he is thereby using the sides of the tree itself and not the sides of the sides of the tree. The Gemara concludes: And the halakha is that use of the sides of a tree or an animal is prohibited on Shabbat, but use of the sides of the sides is permitted.
אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי: הַשְׁתָּא דְּאָמְרַתְּ צְדָדִין אֲסוּרִין, הַאי דַּרְגָּא דְּמִדַּלְיָא — לָא לַינְּחֵיהּ אִינִישׁ אַדִּיקְלָא, דְּהָווּ לְהוּ צְדָדִין. אֶלָּא, לַינְּחֵיהּ אַגְּווֹאזֵי לְבַר מִדִּיקְלָא, וְכִי סָלֵיק — לָא לַינַּח כַּרְעֵיהּ אַגְּווֹאזֵי, אֶלָּא לִיתְּנַח אַקָּנִין. Rav Ashi said: Now that you said that the halakha is that use of the sides is prohibited, with regard to this ladder that one climbs to an elevated area, a person may not lean it against the palm tree itself because it is considered use of the sides of the tree on Shabbat. Rather, he should lean it on stakes that are external to the trunk of the palm tree. And when one climbs the ladder, he should not place his foot on the stakes. Rather, he should place it on the rungs of the ladder because it is prohibited to use the sides of the tree.
מַתְנִי׳ מַתִּירִין פְּקִיעֵי עָמִיר לִפְנֵי בְּהֵמָה, וּמְפַסְפְּסִין אֶת הַכִּיפִין, אֲבָל לֹא אֶת הַזִּירִין. אֵין מְרַסְּקִין לֹא אֶת הַשַּׁחַת וְלֹא אֶת הֶחָרוּבִין לִפְנֵי בְּהֵמָה, בֵּין דַּקָּה וּבֵין גַּסָּה. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה מַתִּיר בֶּחָרוּבִין לַדַּקָּה. MISHNA: One may untie peki’in of grain before an animal on Shabbat, and one may spread the kifin but not the zirin. These terms will be explained in the Gemara. One may not crush hay or carobs before an animal on Shabbat in order to facilitate its eating. He may do so neither for a small animal [daka] nor for a large one. Rabbi Yehuda permits to do so with carobs for a small animal, because it can swallow the hard carobs only with difficulty.
גְּמָ׳ אָמַר רַב הוּנָא: הֵן הֵן פְּקִיעִין, הֵן הֵן כִּיפִין. פְּקִיעִין תְּרֵי, כִּיפִין תְּלָתָא, זִירִין — דְּאַרְזֵי. וְהָכִי קָאָמַר: מַתִּירִין פְּקִיעֵי עָמִיר לִפְנֵי בְּהֵמָה, וּמְפַסְפְסִין. וְהוּא הַדִּין לְכִיפִין, אֲבָל לֹא אֶת הַזִּירִין — לֹא לְפַסְפֵס וְלֹא לְהַתִּיר. אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: מַאי טַעְמָא דְּרַב הוּנָא קָא סָבַר לְמִטְרַח בְּאוּכְלָא — טָרְחִינַן, לְשַׁוּוֹיֵי אוּכְלָא לָא מְשַׁוֵּינַן. GEMARA: Rav Huna said: They are called peki’in and they are also called kifin. The difference between them is that peki’in are tied with two knots, whereas kifin are tied with three. Zirin, which may not be moved on Shabbat, are bundles of cedar branches eaten by animals when the branches are small and moist. And this is what the mishna is saying: One may untie peki’in of grain before an animal and spread them, and the same is true for kifin, but not for zirin, which one may neither spread nor untie. Rav Ḥisda said: What is the reason for the opinion of Rav Huna? He holds that with regard to exerting oneself with food on Shabbat, one may exert himself; however, with regard to rendering food edible, one may not render it so. Bundles of crops which are fit for animal consumption in their present state may be further prepared on Shabbat. Cedar branches cannot be eaten when bound together; therefore, one may not exert himself to untie them and render them edible on Shabbat.
רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר: הֵן הֵן פְּקִיעִין, הֵן הֵן זִירִין. פְּקִיעִין תְּרֵי, זִירִין תְּלָתָא, כִּיפִין — דְּאַרְזֵי. וְהָכִי קָאָמַר: מַתִּירִין פְּקִיעֵי עָמִיר לִפְנֵי בְּהֵמָה, אֲבָל פַּסְפּוֹסֵי — לָא, וְכִיפִין — פַּסְפּוֹסֵי נָמֵי מְפַסְפְּסִינַן, אֲבָל לֹא הַזִּירִין, לְפַסְפֵּס אֶלָּא לְהַתִּיר. אָמַר רָבָא: מַאי טַעְמָא דְּרַב יְהוּדָה — קָסָבַר: שַׁוּוֹיֵי אוּכְלָא — מְשַׁוֵּינַן, מִטְרָח בְּאוּכְלָא — לָא טָרְחִינַן. Rav Yehuda understood the mishna differently and said: They are called peki’in and they are also called zirin. The difference between them is that peki’in are tied with two knots, whereas zirin are tied with three. Kifin are bundles of cedar branches. And this is what the mishna is saying: One may untie peki’in of grain before an animal; however, with regard to spreading them, no, he may not spread them. And with regard to kifin, one may also spread them. However, that is not the case with regard to zirin, as it is prohibited to spread them, and it is only permitted to untie them. Rava said: What is the reason for Rav Yehuda’s opinion? He holds the opposite of Rav Huna’s opinion. He holds that with regard to rendering food edible, one may render it so; however, with regard to exerting oneself on Shabbat with food that is already in an edible state, one may not exert himself.
תְּנַן: אֵין מְרַסְּקִין אֶת הַשַּׁחַת וְאֶת הֶחָרוּבִין לִפְנֵי בְּהֵמָה, בֵּין דַּקָּה וּבֵין גַּסָּה. מַאי לָאו, חָרוּבִין דּוּמְיָא דְשַׁחַת: מָה שַׁחַת דְּרַכִּיכָא, אַף חָרוּבִין דְּרַכִּיכֵי. אַלְמָא לָא טָרְחִינַן בְּאוּכְלָא — וּתְיוּבְתֵּיהּ דְּרַב הוּנָא! We learned in the mishna: One may not crush hay or carobs before an animal on Shabbat in order to facilitate its eating. He may do so neither for a small animal nor for a large one. Is this not referring to carobs that are similar to hay? Just as it is referring to hay that is soft, so too, it is referring to carobs that are soft. Apparently, we do not exert ourselves with food. Since the carobs are suitable for animal consumption without being crushed, it is prohibited to exert oneself and crush them. And this is a conclusive refutation of the opinion of Rav Huna.
אָמַר לְךָ רַב הוּנָא: לָא, שַׁחַת דּוּמְיָא דְּחָרוּבִין: מָה חָרוּבִין דַּאֲקוֹשֵׁי, אַף שַׁחַת דַּאֲקוֹשֵׁי. הֵיכִי מַשְׁכַּחַתְּ לַהּ? בְּעִילֵי זוּטְרֵי. The Gemara answers that Rav Huna could have said to you: No, the mishna is referring to hay that is similar to carobs. Just as it is referring to carobs that are hard, so too, it is referring to hay that is hard and crushing it renders it edible. The Gemara asks: How is it possible to find hay that is so hard that an animal cannot eat it? The Gemara answers: It is referring to young donkeys, that can only eat hay that is crushed well.
תָּא שְׁמַע: רַבִּי יְהוּדָה מַתִּיר בֶּחָרוּבִין לַדַּקָּה. לַדַּקָּה — אִין, לְגַסָּה — לָא. אִי אָמְרַתְּ בִּשְׁלָמָא תַּנָּא קַמָּא סָבַר: מִיטְרָח בְּאוּכְלָא לָא טָרְחִינַן, שַׁוּוֹיֵי מְשַׁוֵּינַן, הַיְינוּ דְּקָא אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה חָרוּבִין לַדַּקָּה נָמֵי שַׁוּוֹיֵי אוּכְלָא הוּא. אֶלָּא אִי אָמְרַתְּ תַּנָּא קַמָּא סָבַר שַׁוּוֹיֵי אוּכְלָא לָא מְשַׁוֵּינַן, מִיטְרָח בְּאוּכְלָא טָרְחִינַן — רַבִּי יְהוּדָה מַתִּיר בֶּחָרוּבִין לַדַּקָּה, כׇּל שֶׁכֵּן לְגַסָּה! Come and hear a proof from that which we learned in the continuation of the mishna: Rabbi Yehuda permits crushing carobs for a small animal. The Gemara infers: For a small animal, yes, it is permitted; for a large one, no, it is not permitted. Granted, if you say that the first tanna holds: One may not exert himself with food on Shabbat, but with regard to rendering food edible, one may render food edible, that explains that which Rabbi Yehuda said in response: Feeding carobs to a small animal is also a case of rendering food edible because the animal cannot eat hard carobs. However, if you say that the first tanna holds that with regard to rendering food edible, one may not render food edible on Shabbat, but with regard to exerting oneself with food, one may exert himself, then Rabbi Yehuda, who permits crushing carobs for a small animal, all the more so he should permit crushing carobs for a large one. If carobs are suitable for consumption by a small animal, all the more so are they suitable for consumption by a large animal.
מִי סָבְרַתְּ ״דַּקָּה״ — דַּקָּה מַמָּשׁ? מַאי ״דַּקָּה״ — גַּסָּה, וּמַאי קָרֵי לַהּ ״דַּקָּה״ — דְּדָיְיקָא בְּאוּכְלָא. The Gemara rejects this: Do you hold that the small animal [daka] mentioned here is referring to an actual small animal? No; rather, what is the meaning of daka here? It is referring to a large animal. And what is the reason that the mishna calls it daka? Because it is particular [dayka] about its food. Since this animal can eat uncrushed carobs when there is no alternative, one may exert himself and crush them for it.
הָא מִדְּקָתָנֵי רֵישָׁא: ״בֵּין דַּקָּה וּבֵין גַּסָּה״, מִכְּלָל דְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה ״דַּקָּה״ — דַּקָּה מַמָּשׁ קָאָמַר! קַשְׁיָא. The Gemara asks: From the fact that it is taught in the first clause of the mishna: Neither for a small animal nor for a large animal, it can be inferred that when Rabbi Yehuda said daka, he meant an actual small animal. The Gemara was unable to answer to find an answer to this question and it remains difficult. Nonetheless, Rav Huna’s opinion was not refuted.
תָּא שְׁמַע: מְחַתְּכִין Therefore, come and hear a proof from that which we learned in another mishna: One may chop