Shabbat 155a — the Talmud in English

if

he inserted ![](pamud.bmp "

exact column location")

a peg into a tree and hung on it

on the peg

a basket

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

above

the height of

ten tefachim,

there is not

his eruv an eruv.

for he intends to establish his place of residence on the ground beneath the tree, which is the public domain, and not in the tree itself. And the basket that is found at a height of ten tefachim is considered a private domain, since an ordinary basket is four tefachim wide. And anything that is ten high and four wide is a private domain. It follows that he cannot take his eruv on Shabbat and eat it, since by doing so he would carry it from a private domain into the public domain. And since it is not a meal suitable for him, he does not acquire residence through it.

And if he hung his eruv on the tree

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

For below ten, the basket does not become a private domain. It follows that 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 this is not considered using the tree, is because

he inserted a peg into the tree,

and he 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 like one who uses the side of the side.

But

if

he did not insert

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

even

if he hung it

below ten tefachim, his eruv is not an eruv.

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

And we conclude concerning our difficulty:

but this tanna

who does not validate without inserting a peg, necessarily

forbids

use

of the sides.

And nevertheless he validates when he inserted a peg. It follows that

he permits

use

of the sides of the sides.

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

Rav Pappa said:

This tanna actually holds that the sides too are permitted. And the fact that he speaks specifically of inserting a peg is because

here we are dealing with a narrow-mouthed basket.

Its opening is narrow, and his hand enters 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 inserted a peg and hung the basket on it, for in this way he does not move the tree when he takes the eruv.

And

we conclude:

the halakha is that the sides

of a tree

are forbidden

for use.

And the sides of the sides are permitted

for use.

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

this ladder that, from it

a ladder by which one ascends to a watchman’s booth, made upon tall poles, which is adjacent to a tree,

let no one

place the ladder

for the ladder

against the palm tree.

Because

they would be the sides.

And when he ascends, it follows that he is using the sides of the tree.

Rather, let him place

the ladder

on a peg

a peg

outside the palm tree.

For he should drive a peg beside the palm tree and support the ladder on it. It follows that he is using the sides of the sides, which are permitted.

And when he ascends

[begins to climb] the ladder,

let him not place his foot

[let him not place his foot]

on the peg

that he drove into the palm tree, for by doing so he is using the sides of the palm tree.

Rather, let him place

his foot on the rungs of the ladder, or

on the projections

that extend from the poles upon which the booth stands, .

Mishna:

One may untie bundles of straw

[bundles of straw of ears]

before an animal

on Shabbat for it to eat.

And one may scatter

[scatter] before it

the kippin

the Gemara explains what “kippin” are. For it is customary to scatter them before an animal, because when they are packed together they become heated, and the animal dislikes them.

But one may not

scatter before it

the branches

the Gemara explains what “branches” are. And there is a dispute in the Gemara concerning the interpretation of the entire first part of the Mishna.

One may not crush

on Shabbat,

neither the shachat

grain that has not reached the completion of its ripening,

nor carobs, before an animal—whether

an animal

small, and whether

an animal

large.

The reason will be explained in the Gemara.

Rabbi Judah permits carobs

to crush them

for

an animal

small.

Gemara:

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

Rav Huna said: They are the bundles, they are the kippin.

All of them are bundles of straw of ears. Rather, they differ in this:

the bundles

are tied with

two

knots, while

the kippin

are tied with

three

knots.

But

the branches

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

of cedar

[cedar].

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

[scatter] them before it. And it is permitted to labor over them, since even while they are tied they are food. He unties and scatters them only in order to make them more suitable.

And the same applies to the kippin,

for one may untie and scatter them. And although they are tied with three knots and the labor involved with them is greater, even so it is permitted, because from the outset they are food.

“But not the branches”” —

for they did not permit with regard to them

neither scattering nor untying.

For from the outset, in their ordinary state, they are not designated for eating. And when one unties and scatters them, he makes them into food. And it is forbidden, because he is creating food on Shabbat.

Rav Hisda said: What is the reason of Rav Huna? —

because

he holds: With regard to laboring over food, we labor.

But

we do not make food.

For it is forbidden because of “creating.”

Rav Judah said:

This is not the interpretation of the Mishna. Rather,

they are the bundles, they are the branches.

And both are connected bundles of straw. Rather,

the bundles

are tied with

two

knots, while

the branches

are tied with

three

knots.

And

“the kippin”

are not of this species. Rather, they are branches

of cedar.

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

them, because as long as they are tied, they are not food, . Therefore it is permitted to untie them, in order to make them food, because of the distress of the animal. But scattering is forbidden, because even without this they are food. And scattering is only for the animal’s pleasure. And with regard to anything that is already food, it is forbidden to labor over it on Shabbat in order to improve it further.

And

the kippin,

since without scattering they are not considered food,

one may also scatter them.

For indeed, making food is permitted.

“But not

the

branches”” —

for they did not permit

scattering

them,

but only untying them

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

Rava said: What is the reason of Rav Judah? —

He holds: We do make food.

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

we do not labor over food.

For it is only for pleasure.

We learned: One may not crush the shachat and the carobs before an animal, whether a small animal or a large one.

And we ask concerning it:

Is it not that “carobs” are analogous to “shachat”?

Just as shachat

which is

soft

and fit for eating,

so too carobs

are speaking of

soft ones.

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

It follows

that although they are already food, it is forbidden to crush them, because

we do not labor over food. And this is a refutation of Rav

Huna,

who said: “With regard to laboring over food, we labor.”

And we answer:

Rav Huna could say to you: Not

is the Mishna speaking of this. Rather, it speaks of hard carobs, which are not fit for food without crushing. And

the shachat

also

is analogous to the carobs. Just as carobs that are hard

[hard, such as ones that have dried],

so too shachat that is hard.

And we ask concerning it:

How can you find

hard shachat?

And we answer:

young ones

[young donkeys]

small.

For the shachat is hard for them, and it requires crushing so that they can eat it.

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

Come and hear: Rabbi Judah permits carobs for a small animal.

It follows:

for a small animal, yes not,

but to crush carobs

for a large animal, no

did he permit.

And we object:

If you say, as is well,

in accordance with Rav Judah, that he is speaking of soft carobs,

and the first tanna holds

that one may not crush them because

we do not labor over food,

and specifically

making

food

we do,

it is well, for

this is what he says: Rabbi Judah

permits

carobs for a small animal.

Because he holds that even soft carobs are not fit for a small animal to eat without crushing. And this is not laboring over food, but

making food,

and it is permitted.

But if you say

in accordance with Rav Huna, that he is speaking of hard carobs,

and the first tanna holds that we do not make food,

and specifically

we labor over food,

it necessarily follows that Rabbi Judah holds that it is food, and that this is not making food but laboring over food. If so, why

does Rabbi Judah permit

to crush

carobs

specifically

for

an animal

small?

But

all the more so

he should have permitted

for a large animal.

For if they are fit for a small animal from the outset, all the more so they are fit for a large animal.

And one cannot say that Rabbi Judah reverses the positions and holds that we make food but do not labor over food, for he is speaking of hard ones, and with regard to a large animal as well, it is making food, .

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

And we answer:

Do you maintain

that

“small””

which Rabbi Judah permits means specifically an animal

actually small?

Is that so? It is not so. Rather,

what is “small”” —

an animal

large

is meant. And specifically with a “large” animal Rabbi Judah permits it, because he holds that even hard carobs are fit for it to eat from the outset. And this is not making food, but laboring over food, which is permitted.

And why does he call

it “small””? —

Because

it gnashes

[gnaws]

the food

and grinds it thoroughly in its mouth. Therefore it does not require crushing. But a truly small animal, which cannot grind them in its mouth without crushing, has them made into food through the crushing, and it is forbidden.

And we object again:

But since the first clause teaches

that the first tanna forbids

“whether

with

a small animal or a large animal,”

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

it follows

that what

the

one who says

Rabbi Judah says, “small”,”

also

is actually small

for Rabbi Judah is commenting on the first tanna.

And we conclude:

It is difficult.

And Rav Huna’s method in interpreting the Mishna remains refuted.