Shabbat 154b — the Talmud in English

And even according to the one who says “a prohibition for which a warning of a court-imposed death penalty was given,”

he is not a complete prohibition for which

one is flogged

“for it,” one who drives an animal laden with a burden is not flogged, because it is not a complete prohibition. For if it came to warn about the labor of driving an animal with a complete prohibition,

let the Merciful One write: “You shall not perform any labor, you, nor your animal.”

“You,”

and “your animal”—

why do I need it?

Rather, to tell you:

it is he who is liable

for a prohibition, not to perform labor. But one who performs [labor] through

his animal is not liable

for a complete prohibition, to be flogged for it.

We learned in the Mishna:

If he reached the outer courtyard,

he takes the utensils that may be moved on Shabbat. And those that may not be moved on Shabbat, he releases the ropes, and the sacks fall by themselves.

Rav Huna said: If his animal was laden

on Shabbat

with glass vessels—

when he wishes to unload them from upon it, he

brings pillows and cushions and places them beneath it, and releases the ropes, and the sacks

in which the vessels are

fall

by themselves onto the pillows and cushions. He does so so that the vessels should not fall onto the ground and break. But he may not take the vessels from the back of the animal with his hands .

And we raise an objection:

But we learned: He takes

with his hands

the vessels that ma

y

be moved on Shabbat.

And glass vessels too may be moved on Shabbat; why, then, did Rav Huna prohibit taking them with his hands?

And we answer:

When Rav Huna said

that he does not take them, he was speaking

of the horns of a bloodletter [

the craftsman’s instruments with which he lets blood].

For

because of their repulsiveness

they are not fit for him

on Shabbat

for anything ,

and they are muktze .

And again we raise an objection: Why is it permitted to place pillows and cushions so that these vessels will fall upon them?

But he makes a utensil unusable for its original purpose .

For when the muktze vessels fall upon the pillows, he will no longer be able to move them, since he is forbidden to remove the muktze from upon them. And on Shabbat one may not make a utensil that was permitted to move unusable for moving, because it resembles demolishing .

And we answer: What are we dealing with here?

With small loads [

small burdens]. After they fall onto the upper pillow, he removes it from beneath them, and they fall onto the pillow beneath it, and so on, until they fall onto the ground. It follows that he does not make the pillows unusable for their original purpose .

He raises an objection:

If his animal was laden

on Shabbat

with untithed produce

or

glass slabs,

he

releases the ropes, and the sacks fall

by themselves.

And even though they [

the glass slabs]

break

as a result, he may not take them with his hands, nor place anything beneath them, because they are muktze. Untithed produce is muktze, since it is not fit to eat on Shabbat, for it is forbidden to prepare it on Shabbat. And the glass slabs too are not fit for anything on Shabbat, as the Gemara establishes them below.

And it is difficult: Why should he not place pillows and cushions beneath the animal, so that the glass slabs will fall upon them and not break?

And we answer:

There

it is speaking

of kulsa [

broad pieces of glass designated for making windows]. Since they do not have the status of a utensil, they are muktze. And since there is no loss in their breaking, for in any event they are meant to be cut into small pieces, they did not permit him to bring pillows and place them beneath them .

And we demonstrate:

It is precise as well

that this is what it is speaking about,

for

it

teaches “glass slabs” together with “untithed produce.” And it implies that they were

similar to “untithed produce.”

Just as untithed produce

is

something that

even

on a weekday

is not fit for him

until he prepares it,

so here too,

with the glass slabs,

also

it is speaking

of something that is not fit for him

for anything until he prepares them. And this is kulsa [Rashba. Maharsha explained it in another manner].

And what is meant by “even though they break”? —

You might say

that although there is no considerable loss in their breaking, nevertheless

they were concerned even for a small loss. For there is some loss even with kulsa: when it falls to the ground, small sparks fly off from it, which are not fit for anything; and because of this, one might permit placing pillows and cushions beneath them.

It teaches us

that they were not concerned for a small loss.

It was taught in a beraita: Rabbi Shimon ben Yohai says: If his animal was laden

on Shabbat

with a load [

burden]

of grain

that is untithed, and he wishes to unload it from upon the animal, he may not take it with his hand, for it is muktze. Rather,

he places his head beneath it

the grain,

and moves it

with his head

to another side, and

through this

it

[

the load]

falls by itself. For moving by means of one’s body is permitted [Ramban].

The donkey of Rabban Gamliel was laden

on Shabbat

with honey. And he did not wish to unload it until the conclusion of Shabbat.

And because it remained laden for the entire Shabbat,

it died at the conclusion of Shabbat.

And we are astonished: Why did he not unload it?

But we learned: “He takes

from atop the donkey the

vessels that may be moved

on Shabbat.” And although honey is something that may be moved, since it is fit to eat and is not muktze.

And we answer: There

it is speaking

when the honey had spoiled [had turned sour]. Since it is not fit to eat, it may not be moved on Shabbat.

And we are astonished: Since it had

spoiled—

for what is it fit

to him? And for what purpose did Rabban Gamliel bring it?

And we answer: It is fit

to

smear it on

a camel’s sore [

a wound of the camel]. Nevertheless, it is muktze, since doing so is forbidden on Shabbat because of the prohibition of healing.

And again we ask: Why did Rabban Gamliel leave the donkey in this manner for the entire Shabbat?

And he should release

the

ropes, and the sacks should fall

that contained the honey, from upon it.

And we answer: If he releases the sacks,

the honey-skins will burst [

the honey-skins will split] when they fall to the ground.

And again we ask:

And he should bring pillows and cushions and place them beneath them,

so that they will fall upon them and not break.

And we answer:

They will become soiled

by this, and become muktze.

And

it follows that he

makes a utensil unusable for its original purpose

, and it is forbidden because it resembles demolishing.

And again we ask:

But there is

the prohibition of

the suffering of living creatures,

in leaving the donkey laden for the entire Shabbat. Let a prohibition from the Torah come and override the prohibition of making a utensil unusable for its original purpose, which is only a rabbinic prohibition .

And we answer:

He holds

Rabban Gamliel that even the prohibition of

the suffering of living creatures

is only

rabbinic. And it is a dispute among the tannaim in “These Finds.”

Abaye found Rabba, who

was

rubbing his son on the back of a donkey [

he was amusing himself with his son on the back of the donkey].

He said to him,

Abaye said to him: But

the master is using an animal. And we learned: “One may not ride upon an animal,” lest he cut a branch in order to guide it. And the same applies to all other uses, that one may not use it on Shabbat.

He said to him: They are its sides—

the sides of the animal

are. For I am not placing my son on the back of the donkey; rather, I am rubbing him against its sides.

And concerning the sides, the Sages did not decree

against using them, because this is not the normal manner of using an animal.

And from where do you say

that they did not decree concerning the sides?

From this:

For we learned: He releases

the

ropes

on the donkey,

and the sacks fall.

What, is it not speaking of a pair of joined sacks [

a pair of sacks joined together by straps]? It is speaking of sacks placed upon the donkey, one on this side and one on that side. If so, he must approach the donkey in order to remove them together. Through this, he leans with his body on the sides of the donkey and rubs against it, and he is using the animal .

And why is it permitted? —

Is this not referring to paired sacks

—a pair of sacks joined by straps? They are placed on the donkey, one on each side. If so, one must draw close to the donkey in order to remove them together. As a result, he leans with his body against the donkey’s sides and rubs against it, thereby using the animal . Why, then, is this permitted?

Rather, certainly it is because

they are its sides, and concerning the sides the Sages did not decree.

And we reject this:

No,

it is not speaking of a pair of joined sacks, but

of a pair joined by rings.

It is a pair of sacks that are not tied to one another by straps. Rather, they are joined by a ring at the end of the strap of each sack, and a small hook holds the two rings. In order to separate them so that they fall to the ground, it is necessary only to pull slightly so that the hook comes out of the rings. For this he need not lean on the sides of the donkey.

Alternatively: What are we dealing with here? With sacks joined

by a loop

. At the end of the rope of each sack there is a loop, and one loop is threaded through the other. Then a bent wooden slat is inserted into the inner loop, so that it should not come out of the outer loop. When he wishes to separate them, he pulls the wood, and they detach by themselves and fall to the ground. For this he need not lean on the donkey at all. Therefore no proof can be brought from there that the Sages did not decree concerning the sides of the donkey.

He raised an objection

Abaye to Rabba: We learned: A sukkah whose

two

of its partitions are made

by human hands, and one of the partitions is

in a tree, is

valid.

For the disqualification of something attached to the ground does not apply to the partitions, but to the roofing.

But

one may not ascend to it [

use it]

on a Festival. Rather, only during the intermediate days of the Festival, because one may not use a tree on Shabbat or a Festival, lest he detach something from it.

And the same law applies if all three of its partitions are in a tree. Rather, it teaches us the greater novelty: even if only one partition is in a tree, it is likewise forbidden to use it on Shabbat.

What, is it not that he hollowed out

holes in the

tree

and placed the reeds of the third partition inside them, and placed the roofing upon it?

And it is customary to place vessels upon the roofing . When he uses the roofing, he is using the tree, because it supports the roofing. And since the roofing rests upon the sides of the tree, it follows

that is, he carved

into

the side of the

tree holes, placed the poles of the third wall inside them, and placed the roofing on top of them .

It is customary to place objects on the roofing .

When one uses the roofing, he is using the tree, because the tree supports the roofing. Since the roofing rests on the sides of the tree, it follows

that

when he uses it,

they are the sides of the tree. And infer from this that even

the sides are forbidden. Just as the sides of a tree are included in the prohibition of using a tree, so too we should say that the sides of an animal are forbidden like the animal itself.

the sides are prohibited. Just as the sides of a tree are included in the prohibition against using a tree, so too we should say that the sides of an animal are prohibited like the animal itself.

And we answer:

No,

it is not speaking in this manner. Rather,

he bent [

bent] the

tree’s

head

of the tree,

and inclined it toward another tree. And likewise he inclined the head of the second tree toward this tree, and tied them to one another; and from them the partition was made.

And he placed roofing upon it.

It follows

that he is using the

head of the

tree, and not its sides. And for this reason it is forbidden to ascend into this sukkah on a Festival.

And again we ask:

If so, say the latter clause.

For it teaches: If

three

of the partitions are made

by human hands, and

only

one

is

in a tree, the sukkah is

valid. And

one may

ascend into it on a Festival.

And if

it is as you said,

that he bent the tree

and placed the roofing upon it,

why may one ascend into it on a Festival?

For in doing so he is using the tree by roofing upon it.

And we answer:

But rather, what

will you say? That it is speaking of hollowing out holes in the tree and placing the partitions in them, and it is forbidden to ascend into it on a Festival because

the sides

of the tree too

are forbidden

for use? This too, according to your reasoning, is difficult. For

in the end, why

when three [partitions are]

made by human hands may one ascend into it on a Festival?

For even in this case he is using the sides of the tree.

Rather, it is necessarily the case that it is not speaking at all of placing the roofing upon the tree.

Rather,

it is speaking there

of a spreading tree [

a tree from which many branches emerge and spread in every direction].

For he made the tree itself merely a partition.

The roofing does not rest upon the tree, but upon the other partitions. He needs the tree only so that it should serve as a partition.

But when two [partitions are] made by human hands and one is in a tree, ordinarily the roofing also rests upon the tree’s partition, since it is difficult to make the roofing rest upon only two partitions [Maharsha].

And it would always be possible to establish it as a case where he bent the tree, as we initially established it, and did not rest the roofing upon it. But it is not reasonable to establish it in this manner, since, as he does not need it for the roofing and it is not needed for the sukkah’s validity, it is not the normal practice to trouble oneself so much to bend two trees and join them to one another.

And we demonstrate:

It is precise as well

that it is not speaking of resting the roofing upon the tree.

For

it teaches in the latter clause:

This is the rule: Any [sukkah] that, if the tree were removed, and it could

still

stand, one may ascend into it on a Festival.

It is evident that the statement, “three [partitions] made by human hands and one in a tree, one may ascend into it on a Festival,” is speaking of a case where the tree does not support the roofing. Even if it were removed, the roofing would remain standing.

And we conclude:

Infer from this.

Let us say: This matter, whether one may use the sides of a tree,

is

a dispute among

the tannaim.

For it was taught in a beraita: A sukkah whose two partitions are made by human hands and one is in a tree is valid, but

one may not ascend into it on a Festival.

is

a dispute between

tannaim?

между собой.

For it was taught in a beraita: A sukkah whose two walls are made by human hands and one is in a tree is fit, but

one may not enter it on a Festival.

Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says in the name of Rabbi Meir: They may go up onto it on Yom Tov.

What, is it not

dealing with boring holes in a tree, and inserting the poles of the wall into them, and roofing over it? And here he is using the sides of the tree to support the roofing.

And in this they disagree. For the one [the

Tanna Kamma]

holds: The sides are forbidden.

And the other [

Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar]

holds:

the sides are

permitted

for use.

Abaye said: No,

they do not disagree in this manner. Rather,

all

the world

hold

that the sides are forbidden

for use. And even Rabbi Meir, who permitted it, permitted it because in this manner it is not considered use of the sides. Rather, it is use of the sides of the sides. For he is not using the poles inserted into the sides of the tree, but the roofing that is upon them. And since the poles rely upon the sides of the tree, the roofing that relies upon them is considered only as the sides of the sides of the tree.

And here they disagree concerning the sides of the sides.

For

the one [the

Tanna Kamma]

holds: The sides of the sides are forbidden.

And the other [

Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar]

holds: The sides of the sides are permitted.

Rava said:

there is no distinction between the sides and the sides of the sides. Rather,

the one who forbids [use] with the sides also forbids [use] with the sides of the sides; and the one who permits [use] with the sides of the sides also permits [use] with the sides.

Accordingly, the Tanna Kamma and Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar disagree as to whether the sides are permitted, as we initially wished to say.

Rav Mesharshya raised an objection to Rava:

A beraita was taught: One who wishes to walk on Shabbat more than two thousand cubits outside his place leaves an eruv [bread sufficient for two meals] within two thousand cubits outside the city. And the place where the eruv was placed is considered the place of his residence. And from there onward he is permitted to walk two thousand cubits.