Shabbat 155a (קנה.) — the Talmud in English

And if

he inserted a peg into a tree, and

Exact page location")

hung

on the peg

a basket

[a basket] and placed his eruv in it—if he hung it

above

the height of

ten handbreadths,

his

eruv is not an eruv.

For he intends to establish his place of residence on the ground beneath the tree, which is a public domain, and not on the tree itself. And the basket, which is located at a height of ten handbreadths, is considered a private domain, as an ordinary basket is four handbreadths wide. And anything that is ten handbreadths high and four handbreadths wide is a private domain. Consequently, he cannot take his eruv on Shabbat and eat it, since by doing so he would be carrying it from a private domain into a public domain. And since it is not a meal fit for him to eat, he does not acquire residence through it.

And if he hung his eruv on the tree

below a height of ten handbreadths, his eruv is an eruv.

For when it is less than ten handbreadths high, the basket does not become a private domain. Consequently, he and his eruv are in the public domain, and it is permitted to take it and eat it.

And we infer:

The reason

that it is permitted for him to take the eruv from the basket, and it is not considered as though he is using the tree, is

because he inserted a peg into the tree,

and hung the basket on it. For the peg is considered the side of the tree, and the basket hanging on it is the side of the side of the tree. And when he takes the eruv from it, he is merely using the side of the side of the tree.

But

if

he did not insert

a peg, but instead hung the basket itself on the tree, the basket becomes like the side of the tree. And it is prohibited to take the eruv from it, because this is considered using the side of the tree. Therefore,

even

if he hung it

below ten handbreadths, his eruv is not an eruv.

For anything that he cannot eat on Shabbat is not considered an eruv.

And we resolve our difficulty:

But this tanna

who does not validate an eruv without inserting a peg necessarily

prohibits

using

the sides.

And nevertheless he validates it when he inserts a peg. Evidently,

he permits

using

the sides of the sides.

And this is difficult for Rava, who said: “One who prohibits use of the sides also prohibits use of the sides of the sides.”

Rav Pappa said:

This tanna actually holds that use of the sides is also permitted. And the reason he speaks specifically of inserting a peg is that

here we are dealing with a tightly closed basket.

Its opening is narrow, and he inserts his hand into it with difficulty. Therefore, if the basket is hanging on the tree itself, when he removes the eruv from it,

he moves the tree

by doing so.

And

it follows that

he is using the tree itself. Therefore, he permits it only when he inserts a peg and hangs the basket on it, since in that manner he does not move the tree when taking the eruv.

Therefore, he permits it only when one inserts a peg and hangs the basket on it, because in that case he does not shake the tree when taking the eruv.

And

we conclude:

The halakha is that the sides

of a tree

are prohibited

for use,

but the sides of the sides are permitted

for use.

Rav Ashi said: Now that you have said, “The sides are prohibited,”

this ladder that is adjacent [a ladder used to ascend to a watchmen’s hut built on tall poles] to a tree,

against the tree,

one

should not place it

against the ladder

of the palm tree,

because

that would make them the sides.

And when he ascends, he is found to be using the sides of the tree.

Rather, he should place it

against the ladder

of a peg [a peg]

a peg

outside the palm tree.

He should drive a peg into the side of the palm tree and support the ladder with it. Consequently, he is using the sides of the sides, which are permitted.

And when he ascends [begins to climb] the ladder,

the ladder,

he should not place his foot [he should not place his foot] on

[let him not place his foot]

the peg

that he drove into the palm tree, since by doing so he would be using the side of the palm tree.

Rather, he should place

his foot on the rungs of the ladder, or

on the projections

that extend from the poles on which the hut stands.

Mishna:

One may untie bundles of straw [bundles of stalks of straw]

[bundles of straw of ears]

before an animal

on Shabbat, for it to eat.

And one may scatter [scatter] before it

before it

the bundles [the Gemara explains what “bundles” are],

as this is the normal practice of scattering them before an animal. For when they are tightly bound, they become heated, and the animal dislikes them.

But one may not

scatter before it

the branches [the Gemara explains what “branches” are]. This is the subject of a dispute in the Gemara, concerning the interpretation of every part of the first clause of the Mishna.

The Gemara contains a dispute concerning the interpretation of each clause in the first part of the Mishna.

One may not crush

on Shabbat

either the green fodder [grain that has not reached the completion of its ripening]

grain that has not reached the completion of its ripening,

or the carob pods, before an animal—whether

an animal

of the small species, or whether

an animal

of the large species.

The Gemara will explain the reason.

Rabbi Yehuda permits crushing carob pods

to crush them

for

an animal

of the small species.

Gemara:

We learned in the Mishna: One may untie bundles of straw before an animal, and one may scatter the bundles, but not the branches.

Rav Huna said: The bundles are the bundles, and the bundles are the bundles.

They are all bundles of straw from stalks. They differ only in that the

bundles

are tied with

two

knots, while the

bundles

are tied with

three

knots.

But

the branches

are not of the same species; rather, they are moist branches

of cedar [cedar].

[cedar].

And this is what it is saying: One may untie bundles of straw before an animal, and one may also scatter them [scatter]

before it. It is permitted to exert effort with them, since even while bound they are food. He unties and scatters them only in order to make them more suitable.

And the same is true of the bundles,

which one may untie and scatter. Although they are tied with three knots, and the effort involved is greater, nevertheless it is permitted, because from the outset they are food.

“But not the branches”—

for they did not permit

either scattering or untying them.

For initially, ordinarily they are not designated for eating. When one unties and scatters them, one transforms them into food, and this is prohibited because he is producing food on Shabbat.

Rav Chisda said: What is the reason of Rav Huna?

Because

he holds: We exert effort with food.

But

we do not transform something into food.

That is prohibited because of “producing.”

Rav Yehuda said:

That is not the interpretation of the Mishna. Rather,

the bundles are the bundles, and the branches are the branches.

Both are connected bundles of straw. However, the

bundles

are tied with

two

knots, while the

branches

are tied with

three

knots.

And the

“bundles”

are not of this species. Rather, they are branches

of cedar.

And this is what it is saying: One may untie bundles of straw before an animal, but one may not scatter them.

For as long as they are bound, they are not food. Therefore, it is permitted to untie them in order to make them food, because of the animal’s distress. But scattering them is prohibited, because even without that they are food. Scattering is only for the animal’s pleasure. And with anything that is already food, it is prohibited to exert effort on Shabbat in order to improve it further.

And

the bundles,

since without scattering they are not considered food,

may also be scattered.

For transforming something into food is permitted.

“But not

the

branches”—

they did not permit

scattering

them,

but only untying them

alone. For in every respect their law is like that of the bundles.

Rava said: What is the reason of Rav Yehuda?

He holds: We transform something into food.

Because when an animal has nothing to eat, it suffers. But once food is already available,

we do not exert effort with food,

as this is merely for pleasure.

We learned in the Mishna: One may not crush the green fodder or the carob pods before an animal, whether a small animal or a large animal.

And we raised a difficulty:

Is it not the case that “carob pods” are analogous to “green fodder”?

Just as the green fodder

is

soft

and fit for eating,

so too the carob pods

are referring to

soft ones.

And since they are considered food even before they are crushed, crushing is only for the animal’s pleasure.

Evidently,

even though they are already food, it is prohibited to crush them, because

we do not exert effort with food. And this is a refutation of Rav

Huna,

who said: “We exert effort with food.”

And we answer:

Rav Huna can say to you: No,

the Mishna is not speaking of this. Rather, it is speaking of hard carob pods, which are not fit to be eaten without crushing. And the

green fodder

as well is

analogous to the carob pods: Just as the carob pods are hard [hard, for example, because they have dried],

[hard, such as ones that have dried],

so too the green fodder is hard.

And we raise a difficulty:

How can you find

hard green fodder?

And we answer:

In the case of [young donkeys]

[young donkeys]

small ones.

The green fodder is hard for them, and it requires crushing so that they will be able to eat it.

And since without crushing they are not food, it is prohibited to crush them, because he is producing food.

Come and hear: Rabbi Yehuda permits crushing carob pods for a small animal.

This implies that

for a small animal, no, but crushing carob pods

but to crush carobs

for a large animal, he did not permit.

he did not permit.

And we challenge this:

Granted, if you say

that it is in accordance with Rav Yehuda, who speaks of soft carob pods,

and the first tanna holds

that they may not be crushed because

we do not exert effort with food,

and specifically

transforming

something into food

we do,

this works well, since

that is what Rabbi Yehuda says:

he permits

carob pods for a small animal,

because he holds that even soft carob pods are not fit for a small animal to eat without crushing. This is not exertion with food; rather,

it is transforming something into food,

which is permitted.

But if you say

that it is in accordance with Rav Huna, who speaks of hard carob pods,

and the first tanna holds that we do not transform something into food,

and specifically

we exert effort with food, then necessarily Rabbi Yehuda holds that they are food. Crushing is not transforming something into food, but exertion with food. If so, why does

then Rabbi Yehuda must hold that the carobs are already food, and that crushing is not turning something into food but exertion with food. If so, why does

Rabbi Yehuda permit

crushing

carob pods

specifically

for

an animal

of the small species?

Surely

all the more so

he should permit it

for a large animal, since if they are initially fit for a small animal, all the more so they are fit for a large animal.

And one cannot say that Rabbi Yehuda reverses the positions and holds that we transform something into food but do not exert effort with food, since the case concerns hard carob pods, and with regard to a large animal as well, crushing is transforming something into food.

One cannot say that Rabbi Yehuda reverses the principles and holds that one may turn something into food but may not exert oneself with food, because the case concerns hard carobs, and with regard to a large animal as well, crushing would be turning something into food .

Furthermore, if so, he should also have permitted untying and scattering the branches.]

And we answer:

Do you think

that

“small”

for which Rabbi Yehuda permits it means specifically an animal

of the small species?

That is not so. Rather,

what does “small”

mean? An animal

of the large species. And specifically for a “large” animal Rabbi Yehuda permits it, because he holds that even hard carob pods are initially fit for it to eat. It is not transforming something into food; rather, it is exertion with food, which is permitted.

refer to? It is a large animal. Rabbi Yehuda permits it specifically for a “large” animal, because he holds that even hard carobs are suitable for it to eat from the outset. This is not turning something into food, but exertion with food, which is permitted.

And why does he call

it “small”?

Because it

nibbles

at food

and grinds it thoroughly in its mouth. Therefore, it does not require crushing. But a small animal that cannot grind them in its mouth without crushing them has them transformed into food by the crushing, and this is prohibited.

and grinds it thoroughly in its mouth. Therefore, it does not need the carobs crushed. But an actually small animal cannot grind them in its mouth without crushing them; consequently, crushing turns them into food for it, and is prohibited.

We challenge this again:

But since the first clause states

that the first tanna prohibits it,

“whether

for a

small animal or for a large animal,”

and there “small” and “large” have their plain meaning,

by inference,

the

“small”

that

Rabbi Yehuda says

also

means a small animal of the small species, since Rabbi Yehuda is commenting on the first tanna.

because Rabbi Yehuda is commenting on the first tanna.

And we conclude:

It is difficult.

Rav Huna’s interpretation of the Mishna remains refuted.