Shabbat 53aשבת נ״ג א
The William Davidson Talmudתלמוד מהדורת ויליאם דוידסון
Save "Shabbat 53a"
Toggle Reader Menu Display Settings
53aנ״ג א

גְּמָ׳ אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: וְהוּא שֶׁקְּשׁוּרָה לוֹ מֵעֶרֶב שַׁבָּת. אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן: מַתְנִיתִין נָמֵי דַּיְקָא, דְּקָתָנֵי: אֵין הַחֲמוֹר יוֹצֵא בַּמַּרְדַּעַת בִּזְמַן שֶׁאֵינָהּ קְשׁוּרָה לוֹ.

GEMARA: Shmuel said: And with regard to the halakha taught in our mishna that a donkey may go out on Shabbat with its saddlecloth, that only applies to a case where it was tied to the animal from Shabbat eve. Rav Naḥman said: The wording of our mishna is also precise in support of Shmuel’s statement, as it teaches later in the chapter: A donkey may not go out into the public domain on Shabbat with its saddlecloth when it is not tied to its back.

הֵיכִי דָמֵי? אִילֵּימָא שֶׁאֵינָהּ קְשׁוּרָה לוֹ כְּלָל — פְּשִׁיטָא, דִילְמָא נָפְלָה לֵיהּ וְאָתֵי לְאֵתוּיֵי. אֶלָּא לָאו שֶׁאֵינָהּ קְשׁוּרָה מֵעֶרֶב שַׁבָּת. מִכְּלָל דְּרֵישָׁא, שֶׁקְּשׁוּרָה לוֹ מֵעֶרֶב שַׁבָּת. שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ.

The Gemara clarifies the meaning of that mishna: What are the circumstances? If you say that the later mishna is referring to a case where the saddlecloth is not tied to the animal at all, that is obvious. There is concern lest the saddlecloth fall from the animal and its owner will come to bring it and carry it four cubits in the public domain. Rather, is it not referring to a case where the saddlecloth is presently tied to the animal, but it was not tied from Shabbat eve? By inference, conclude that the first clause, i.e., our mishna, which permits the animal to go out with its saddlecloth, is referring to a case where the saddlecloth was tied to the animal from Shabbat eve. The Gemara concludes: Indeed, conclude from it that this is the correct understanding.

תַּנְיָא נָמֵי הָכִי: חֲמוֹר יוֹצֵא בַּמַּרְדַּעַת בִּזְמַן שֶׁקְּשׁוּרָה לוֹ מֵעֶרֶב שַׁבָּת, וְלֹא בָּאוּכָּף אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁקָּשׁוּר לוֹ מֵעֶרֶב שַׁבָּת. רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר: אַף בָּאוּכָּף בִּזְמַן שֶׁקָּשׁוּר לוֹ מֵעֶרֶב שַׁבָּת, וּבִלְבַד שֶׁלֹּא יִקְשׁוֹר לוֹ מַסְרֵיכָן, וּבִלְבַד שֶׁלֹּא יִפְשׁוֹל לוֹ רְצוּעָה תַּחַת זְנָבוֹ.

That was also taught in a baraita: A donkey may go out on Shabbat with its saddlecloth when it was tied to the animal from Shabbat eve, and it may not go out with the saddle, even though it was tied to the animal from Shabbat eve. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: The donkey may even go out with its saddle when it was tied to the animal from Shabbat eve, provided that he does not tie the strap with which the saddle is fastened around the donkey’s belly, and provided that he does not pass a strap under the animal’s tail, which is standard procedure when placing a burden on the animal.

בְּעָא מִינֵּיהּ רַב אַסִּי בַּר נָתָן מֵרַבִּי חִיָּיא בַּר רַב אָשֵׁי: מַהוּ לִיתֵּן מַרְדַּעַת עַל גַּבֵּי חֲמוֹר בְּשַׁבָּת? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: מוּתָּר. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: וְכִי מָה בֵּין זֶה לְאוּכָּף? אִישְׁתִּיק.

Rav Asi bar Natan raised a dilemma before Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Rav Ashi: What is the halakha with regard to placing a saddlecloth on a donkey on Shabbat in a private domain in order to warm the donkey with no intention to take it into the public domain? Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Ashi said to him: It is permitted. Rav Asi bar Natan said to him: What is the difference between this and a saddle, which may not be moved on Shabbat? Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Ashi remained silent and did not answer.

אֵיתִיבֵיהּ: אוּכָּף שֶׁעַל גַּבֵּי חֲמוֹר — לֹא יְטַלְטְלֶנּוּ בְּיָדוֹ, אֶלָּא מוֹלִיכָהּ וּמְבִיאָהּ בֶּחָצֵר וְהוּא נוֹפֵל מֵאֵילָיו. הַשְׁתָּא לִיטּוֹל אָמְרַתְּ לָא, לְהַנִּיחַ מִיבַּעְיָא?!

Rav Asi bar Natan thought that Rabbi Ḥiyya was of the opinion that even a saddle may be placed on a donkey on Shabbat. He, therefore, raised an objection from a baraita: A saddle that is on a donkey on Shabbat, and its owner wishes to remove it, he may not move it with his hand to remove it; rather, he walks the animal back and forth in the courtyard, and the saddle falls on its own. Now even with regard to removing a saddle that is already on the animal’s back, you said no, one may not move it; is prohibiting one from placing the saddle on the animal necessary?

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַבִּי זֵירָא: שִׁבְקֵיהּ, כְּרַבֵּיהּ סְבִירָא לֵיהּ, דְּאָמַר רַב חִיָּיא בַּר אָשֵׁי אָמַר רַב: תּוֹלִין טְרַסְקָל לִבְהֵמָה בְּשַׁבָּת, וְקַל וָחוֹמֶר לְמַרְדַּעַת. וּמָה הָתָם דְּמִשּׁוּם תַּעֲנוּג שְׁרֵי, הָכָא דְּמִשּׁוּם צַעַר — לֹא כׇּל שֶׁכֵּן.

Rabbi Zeira said to Rav Asi: Leave Rabbi Ḥiyya, and do not raise an objection to his statement, as he agrees with his teacher. As Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi said that Rav said: One may hang a basket with fodder around the neck of an animal on Shabbat, and by means of an a fortiori inference, derive that one may place a saddlecloth on an animal’s back on Shabbat. What is the a fortiori inference? Just as there, placing the basket of fodder so that the animal can eat without bending down, which is done for the animal’s pleasure, is permitted; here, placing the saddlecloth, which is done to prevent the animal from suffering from the cold, all the more so should be permitted.

שְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר: מַרְדַּעַת מוּתָּר, טְרַסְקָל — אָסוּר. אֲזַל רַבִּי חִיָּיא בַּר יוֹסֵף אַמְרַהּ לִשְׁמַעְתָּא דְרַב קַמֵּיהּ דִּשְׁמוּאֵל. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אִי הָכִי אָמַר אַבָּא, לָא יָדַע בְּמִילֵּי דְשַׁבְּתָא וְלָא כְּלוּם.

Shmuel said: A saddlecloth is permitted; however, a basket with fodder is prohibited. Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Yosef went and said the halakha of Rav before Shmuel. Shmuel said to him: If Abba, Rav, actually said that, he knows nothing at all about matters of Shabbat.

כִּי סָלֵיק רַבִּי זֵירָא, אַשְׁכְּחֵיהּ לְרַבִּי בִּנְיָמִין בַּר יֶפֶת דְּיָתֵיב וְקָאָמַר לֵיהּ מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: נוֹתְנִין מַרְדַּעַת עַל גַּבֵּי חֲמוֹר בְּשַׁבָּת. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: יִישַׁר, וְכֵן תַּרְגְּמַהּ אַרְיוֹךְ בְּבָבֶל.

When Rabbi Zeira ascended to Eretz Yisrael he found Rabbi Binyamin bar Yefet who sat and said to him in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan: One may place a saddlecloth on a donkey on Shabbat. Rabbi Zeira said to him: You have spoken well, and Aryokh explained the matter likewise in Babylonia.

״אַרְיוֹךְ״ מַנּוּ — שְׁמוּאֵל. וְהָא רַב נָמֵי אַמְרַהּ? אֶלָּא שַׁמְעֵיהּ דַּהֲוָה מְסַיֵּים בַּהּ: וְאֵין תּוֹלִין טְרַסְקָל בְּשַׁבָּת, אֲמַר לֵיהּ: יִישַׁר, וְכֵן תַּרְגְּמַהּ אַרְיוֹךְ בְּבָבֶל.

The Gemara asks: Who is Aryokh? It is Shmuel. Didn’t Rav also say that one may place a saddlecloth on a donkey on Shabbat? With regard to a saddlecloth they agree. Why then did Rabbi Zeira attribute the ruling specifically to Shmuel? Rather, he heard Rabbi Binyamin bar Yefet conclude: However, one may not hang a basket with fodder around the neck of an animal on Shabbat. It was that part of the statement that led him to say: You have spoken well, and Aryokh explained the matter likewise in Babylonia.

דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא מִיהַת מַרְדַּעַת מוּתָּר, מַאי שְׁנָא מֵאוּכָּף? — שָׁאנֵי הָתָם דְּאֶפְשָׁר דְּנָפֵיל מִמֵּילָא.

The Gemara continues: In any case, everyone agrees that a saddlecloth is permitted. The question arises: How is a saddlecloth different from a saddle, which may not even be removed from the donkey? If the concern is for the animal’s suffering, why is it not permitted to remove the saddle? The Gemara answers: It is different there, as it is possible for the saddle to fall on its own. Therefore, there is no reason to permit its removal by hand.

רַב פָּפָּא אָמַר: כָּאן לְחַמְּמָהּ, כָּאן לְצַנְּנָהּ. לְחַמְּמָהּ, אִית לַהּ צַעֲרָא. לְצַנְּנָהּ, לֵית לַהּ צַעֲרָא. וְהַיְינוּ דְּאָמְרִי אִינָשֵׁי: חֲמָרָא אֲפִילּוּ בִּתְקוּפַת תַּמּוּז קָרִיר לַהּ.

Rav Pappa said: There is a distinction between the two cases: Here, where the Sages permitted placing a saddlecloth on a donkey on Shabbat, it is to warm the animal. There, where the Sages prohibited removing a saddle, it is to cool the animal. Placing the saddlecloth to warm the animal is permitted because otherwise it experiences discomfort from the cold. However, removing the saddle to cool the animal is prohibited because the animal does not experience discomfort from excessive heat. And that is the folk saying that people say: A donkey, even in the summer season of Tammuz, is cold. Therefore, seeing to the animal’s warmth is more important.

מֵיתִיבִי: לֹא יֵצֵא הַסּוּס בִּזְנַב שׁוּעָל, וְלֹא בַּזַּהֲרוּרִית שֶׁבֵּין עֵינָיו. לֹא יֵצֵא הַזָּב בַּכִּיס שֶׁלּוֹ, וְלֹא עִזִּים בַּכִּיס שֶׁבְּדַדֵּיהֶן, וְלֹא פָּרָה בַּחִסּוּם שֶׁבְּפִיהָ, וְלֹא סְיָיחִים בַּטְּרַסְקָלִין שֶׁבְּפִיהֶם לִרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים, וְלֹא בְּהֵמָה בַּסַּנְדָּל שֶׁבְּרַגְלֶיהָ, וְלֹא בַּקָּמֵיעַ אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהוּא מוּמְחֶה — וְזֶה חוֹמֶר בַּבְּהֵמָה מִבָּאָדָם.

The Gemara raises an objection from the Tosefta to those who prohibit placing a basket with fodder around an animal’s neck on Shabbat: A horse may neither go out into the public domain on Shabbat with a fox’s tail that is placed as a talisman to ward off the evil eye nor with a string of red wool that is hung between its eyes as an ornament. Neither may a zav go out with his pouch that prevents his clothes from becoming sullied from his emissions, nor goats with a pouch that is on their udders so that they will not be scratched by stones, nor a cow with the muzzle that is on its mouth, nor foals with baskets of fodder that are around their mouths into the public domain. And an animal may neither go out with metal shoes that are on its feet, nor with an amulet that is placed on the animal to promote its good health, even if the amulet has proven effective. And this is a stricture that applies to animals beyond the strictures that apply to people, as a person is permitted to go out into the public domain with an amulet that has proved effective.

אֲבָל יוֹצֵא הוּא בָּאֶגֶד שֶׁעַל גַּבֵּי הַמַּכָּה, וּבַקְּשִׁישִׁין שֶׁעַל גַּבֵּי הַשֶּׁבֶר, וּבַשִּׁילְיָא הַמְדוּלְדֶּלֶת בָּהּ, וּפוֹקְקִין לָהּ זוּג בְּצַוָּארָהּ, וּמְטַיֶּילֶת עִמּוֹ בֶּחָצֵר.

However, an animal may go out with a bandage that is on a wound, and with splints that are on a broken bone so that it will heal properly, and with the afterbirth hanging from its womb. And one may plug the bell hanging from an animal’s neck to prevent it from ringing, and then the animal may walk with it in the courtyard, which is a private domain, but not in a public domain.

קָתָנֵי מִיהַת: וְלֹא סְיָיחִין בִּטְרַסְקָלִים שֶׁבְּפִיהֶם לִרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים. לִרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים הוּא דְּלָא, הָא בְּחָצֵר — שַׁפִּיר דָּמֵי. מַאי לַָאו, בִּגְדוֹלִים וּמִשּׁוּם תַּעֲנוּג?!

In any case, it is taught here: Nor foals with baskets of fodder that are around their mouths into the public domain. By inference: It is specifically into the public domain that they may not go with fodder baskets in their mouths; however, in a courtyard, they may well walk with a basket of fodder. What? Is it not referring to large foals around whose necks fodder baskets are hung for their pleasure?

לָא, בִּקְטַנִּים וּמִשּׁוּם צַעַר: דַּיְקָא נָמֵי, דְּקָתָנֵי

The Gemara answers: No, it is referring to small foals, and the baskets are hung to prevent their discomfort. The legs of a young foal are long and its neck is short. Consequently, eating from the ground is difficult. Hanging the fodder basket around its neck enables it to eat without bending down. The Gemara adds: This is also precise in the language of the Tosefta, as it teaches the case of the foals