Shabbat 155b (קנה:) — the Talmud in English

Ta shma:

we learned:

One may cut

the pumpkins

that have been detached

before an animal.

And although they are designated for human consumption, they are not forbidden for consumption by an animal on account of muktze.

And

likewise, one may cut

a carcass before dogs.

And we raised the following question concerning it:

Is it not

with

pumpkins

that are soft that the Mishna is dealing,

analogous to a carcass? Just as a carcass

that

is soft

even before it is cut,

so too

with

pumpkins that

are

soft

from the outset is the Mishna dealing?

And although they are food without being cut, it is nevertheless permitted to cut them.

Apparently, we engage in exertion for the sake of food

on Shabbat.

And this is a refutation of Rav Yehuda,

who said: We may transform an item into food, but we may not engage in exertion for the sake of food.

And we answer:

Rav Yehuda could say to you: No,

the Mishna is not dealing with this case. Rather, it is dealing with hard pumpkins, which, without cutting, are not fit for consumption by an animal. And

also with a carcass

that is

analogous

to these

pumpkins

is the Mishna dealing.

Just as the pumpkins are hard

[difficult to eat],

so too the carcass is hard

[difficult to eat]. Since they are not fit for consumption without cutting, it is permitted to cut them. We may transform an item into food.

And

we raised the following question:

How can you find

a carcass that is not fit for dogs because of its hardness?

And we answer: It can be found

with the meat of elephants

[the carcass of elephants].

Alternatively:

What is the case here?

With small puppies

[puppies]

that are tiny.

Every carcass is difficult for them to eat, and without cutting it is not considered food for them.

Ta shma: Rav Hanan of Nehardea taught: One may crumble

[pulverize]

straw and alfalfa, and mix

them together and place them before the animal for it to eat, since it does not desire straw by itself. Once they are mixed with one another, it will eat the straw on account of the alfalfa.

But straw and alfalfa, even as they are, are also fit for it to eat. Nevertheless, we permit crumbling and mixing them.

Apparently, we engage in exertion for the sake of food.

And this is difficult for Rav Yehuda, who said: We do not engage in exertion for the sake of food.

And we answer: We are dealing with straw and alfalfa that are not fit for consumption without crumbling and mixing. With regard to

straw,

this can be found

with rotten straw

[hard straw; Ramban], which the animal eats only when it is mixed with alfalfa. And even the

alfalfa

requires crumbling, because the case is

with small calves

[young calves], for whom alfalfa is difficult to chew and must be softened.

Mishna:

One may not force-feed a camel

on Shabbat.

“Force-feeding” means that one stuffs a large amount of food down the animal’s throat against its will, until it becomes like a manger within its intestines. This is forbidden as a rabbinic decree, lest one come to crush legumes, knead flour, or perform a similar act [Maimonides, chapter 21, halakha 35].

And

also

one may not stuff

it [he stuffs barley into its throat] on Shabbat. Although he does not stuff it as forcefully as in “force-feeding,” it is nevertheless forbidden.

But one may feed

it on Shabbat. The Gemara will explain what “feeding” means.

And

likewise

one may not stuff calves

on Shabbat.

“Stuffing” means that one pushes food into their intestines, to a place from which they can no longer bring the food back up.

But one may feed

them on Shabbat.

And one may place food directly into the mouths of chickens

on Shabbat.

“Placing food directly into the mouths” means “feeding.” However, with regard to chickens it is called “placing food directly into the mouths.”

And one may place water in bran

on Shabbat for the animal to eat.

But one may not knead

[mix] the bran with water.

And one may not place

on Shabbat

water before bees or before doves in a dovecote.

The reason is explained in the Gemara.

But one may place

water

before geese and chickens, and before domesticated doves

[house doves]. They are called this after their location [Rashi. Maimonides, in his Commentary on the Mishna, explained that they are called this after Herod, who raised them in his palace].

Gemara:

We learned in the Mishna: One may not force-feed a camel.

And we raised the following question concerning it:

What does “one may not force-feed” mean?

Rav Yehuda said: One may not make a manger for it within its intestines,

by compressing a large amount of food into it.

And we wonder: Is it possible

for there to be such a thing,

that its intestines expand like a manger?

And we answer: Yes. Such a thing can occur in reality.

As Rav Yirmeya of Difti said: I myself saw that Arab

[an Arab]

fed

[gave food to] his camel

a kor

[a kor of provisions],

and

also

loaded

on its back a load of

a kor

of provisions for its consumption, in addition to its other load.

We learned in the Mishna:

One may not stuff

calves, but one may feed them.

And we raised the following question concerning it:

What is “stuffing”

which is forbidden,

and what is “feeding”

which is permitted?

Rav Yehuda said: “Stuffing”

means that one pushes food into the animal as far as

the place where

it already

cannot bring it back up

and expel it. And

“feeding”

means that one pushes it

to the place where

it still

can bring it back up

.

But Rav Ḥisda said: Both this and that

[stuffing and feeding] mean pushing it

to a place from which it cannot bring

the food back up. Rather,

“stuffing”

means pushing it

with a utensil.

And

“feeding”

means pushing it

by hand.

Rav Yosef raised an objection: One may place food directly into the mouths of chickens

on Shabbat.

And it goes without saying that one may place food

for them.

But one may not place food directly into the mouths of dovecote doves or attic doves, and it goes without saying that one may not feed them directly

.

And we raise the following question concerning it:

What is “placing food directly into the mouths,” and what is

“placing food”?

If you say that “placing food directly into the mouths”

means

that one feeds it

the chicken and puts food

into its mouth with his hands,

and

“placing food”

means

that one throws it before them

and it eats by itself—

it follows that, with regard to dovecote doves and attic doves,

concerning which it teaches “one may not place food,” even

throwing it before them

so that they eat by themselves

is also not

permitted. This cannot be said, for surely it is obvious that one may place food before them, since this entails no exertion.

Rather, is it not

that both “placing food” and “placing food directly into the mouths” mean feeding the chicken by hand? Rather,

“placing food directly into the mouths”

means that one pushes food down its throat as far as

the place from which it cannot bring it back up

. And

“placing food”

means that one pushes it

to the place where

it still

can bring it back up

.

And since we permit “placing food directly into the mouths” with chickens, even though it is to a place from which they cannot bring it back up, apparently this is also permitted with an animal.

It follows that “stuffing”

which we forbid with an animal is forbidden specifically because it is done

with a utensil

, whereas when it is done by hand, this is “feeding,” and it is permitted even to a place from which the animal cannot bring the food back up. That is, “feeding” is the same as “placing food directly into the mouths.”

And this is a refutation of Rav Yehuda,

according to whom the permitted “feeding” means specifically pushing food only to a place from which the animal can bring it back up.

And we answer:

Rav Yehuda could say to you: Actually,

“placing food directly into the mouths”

means

that one feeds it by hand. And

“placing food”

means

that one throws it before them

. Both refer to a place from which the animal can bring the food back up.

And

as for

what is difficult for you—

why is it that

dovecote doves and attic doves

may not even be given food by throwing it before them—this is not difficult. It is because specifically

these

[chickens]

whose food is incumbent upon you,

it is permitted to place food before them. But

these

[dovecote and attic doves]

whose food is not incumbent upon you,

since their food is available to them in the field, it is therefore forbidden even to place food before them.

As it was taught in a beraita:

One may give

on Shabbat

food before a dog, but one may not give food before a pig.

And what is the difference between this one and that one?

This one

[the dog]

has its food incumbent upon you. And this one

[the pig]

does not have its food incumbent upon you.

For it is forbidden to raise pigs, as we have established: Cursed is a Jew who raises pigs.

Rav Ashi said: The Mishna also indicates this

explicitly,

as it teaches:

“One may not place water before bees or before doves in a dovecote. But one may place it before geese

and before chickens and before domesticated doves.”

What is the reason? Is it not because these

[the chickens]

have their food incumbent upon you, whereas these

[the bees and dovecote doves]

do not have their food incumbent upon you?

Apparently, it is entirely forbidden to place food before living creatures whose food is not incumbent upon you.

And we reject this:

And according to your reasoning,

if the reason is that their food is not incumbent upon you,

why specifically “water”

? Let it teach that

even wheat and barley are also not

to be placed before them.

Rather,

we can indeed say that one may feed even living creatures whose food is not incumbent upon you. But

water is different,

for it may not be placed before them because

it is readily available in the marsh.

Food, however, is not so readily available to them.

Rabbi Yona taught at the entrance to the house of the Nasi: What

is the meaning of that which is written, “The righteous man knows the judgment of the poor”?

This is its meaning:

The Holy One, blessed be He, knows that a dog’s provisions are meager.

They are not readily available to it, because a person does not take pity on it by giving it abundant food.

Therefore,

He arranged that

its food should remain in its intestines

and not be digested until

three days have passed.

And as we learned:

A dog that ate from the flesh of a corpse and then died while inside a house renders the house impure with the impurity of a tent, because of the corpse-flesh inside the dog’s body.

But as long as the dog is alive, the corpse-flesh inside it does not transmit impurity, because impurity swallowed by a living creature does not transmit impurity.

And

how long does its food remain

[the corpse-flesh that it ate]

in its intestines

of the living creature before it died,

so that

the house would be

impure

as a tent?

With a dog,

for

three complete days. Until then, the flesh that it ate remains present in its intestines. But afterward it has already been digested and is no longer present.

But with birds and fish,

which ate from the flesh of a corpse, the flesh remains in their intestines only for the amount of time needed

for the piece

of flesh

to fall into a fire and burn.

Rav Hamnuna said: Since it says that the Holy One, blessed be He, took into account the dog’s provisions,

learn from this that it is proper conduct to throw a piece of meat

to a dog

[to throw raw meat]

for a dog.

And how much

is the measure that one should throw before it?

Rav Mari said: Measure

[a small amount of] meat and give it to the dog, the measure of

its ear

[its ear], and no more.

And a stick after it.

That is, after giving it meat, strike it with a stick so that it will not become accustomed to you.

And this applies

when it is proper conduct to place food before it

in the field

[in the field].

But in the city

[in the city],

not

should one give it anything if it is not his own dog, because

by

feeding

it causes

the dog

to become attached

to him.

Rav Pappa said: There is no creature poorer

[poorer]

than a dog.

For its food is not readily available.

And there is none richer

[richer]

than a pig.

Every kind of food is suitable for it, and wherever it is, it finds something to eat. People also place abundant food before it.

And we return to the dispute between Rav Yehuda and Rav Ḥisda concerning what “stuffing” is and what “feeding” is.

It was taught in accordance with the opinion of Rav Yehuda: What is “stuffing,” and what is “feeding”?

“Stuffing”—

one makes the animal lie down and forces its mouth open

[by placing a bit in its mouth so that it cannot close it],

and feeds it vetch and water simultaneously

while it is lying down. The water forces the vetch into its throat against its will.

“Feeding”—

one feeds it while it is standing

[when it is standing],

and gives it drink while it is standing. And one gives it vetch by itself and water by itself,

not simultaneously.

Since it is not lying down, he cannot push the food so far into its throat, to a place from which it cannot bring the food back up, in accordance with Rav Yehuda.

We learned in the Mishna:

One may place food directly into the mouths of chickens,

and one may place water in bran, but one may not knead it.

Abaye said: I stated before my master

[Rabba]:

The Mishna,

which holds that there is no prohibition of kneading when one adds water to flour without kneading it,

whose

view is it?

And he said to me,

Rabba:

It is the view of Rabbi Yosei bar Yehuda.

As it was taught:

If

one person places the flour, and another places into it

of the flour

the water,

or if one person first placed the water and afterward another placed the flour into the water, the

last person is liable.

For placing flour into water, or water into flour, constitutes its kneading, and there is thereby a prohibition of “kneading” even without mixing them together by hand—this is the statement of Rabbi.

Rabbi Yosei bar Yehuda says: He is not liable

for kneading

until he kneads it.

And we reject this:

Perhaps Rabbi Yosei bar Yehuda said this only there,

that kneading is required,

with regard to flour.

Because it

is an item that can be kneaded.

Since this is its normal manner of preparation, as long as it has not been kneaded, this is not the manner of kneading.

But bran, which cannot be kneaded,

perhaps

even Rabbi Yosei bar Yehuda agrees

that adding water alone constitutes its kneading, since this is the manner in which its preparation is performed.

And we answer:

This cannot be the case

that one distinguishes between flour and bran.

For

this

was explicitly taught

that they also dispute the matter with regard to bran.

As it was taught:

One may not place water in bran—

the statement of Rabbi.

Rabbi Yosei bar Yehuda says: One may place water in bran.

As long as he does not knead it, there is no prohibition of “kneading.”

The Sages taught: One may not knead keli

[flour made from grain that was dried in an oven].

And some say: One may knead

the keli.

And we raise the following question concerning it:

Who

are

the “some say”?