Shabbat 53a — the Talmud in English

Gemara: The Gemara, the Talmudic discussion of the Mishna:

We learned in the Mishna: A donkey may go out with a saddlecloth when it is tied to it.

Shmuel said: This

law

applies

only when the saddlecloth is

tied to it

mardaat

Shabbat. But if the donkey had not been wearing it before Shabbat, it may not go out with it. This is because the saddlecloth must be placed on the donkey before Shabbat, demonstrating that it is needed by the donkey. If it was not placed on it before Shabbat, it is not considered clothing but merely a burden.

Но если он не был облачён в неё до Шабата, он не выходит в ней. Потому что необходимо, чтобы до Шабата было выявлено, что она нужна ослу. А если не выявил этого с кануна Шабата, она считается не одеждой, а всего лишь ношей.

Rav Naḥman said: The Mishna

(below, 54b)

also proves

this.

For

the Mishna

teaches

below:

“A donkey may not go out with a saddlecloth when it is not tied to it.”

And we considered this statement:

What are the circumstances?

If you say that it is not tied to it at all, it is obvious

that it may not go out with it, because

perhaps it will fall from it, and the owner will come

to

bring

it and carry it in the public domain.

Rather, is it not

the meaning of the Mishna that it may not go out with a pack saddle when

it is not tied

to it

from the eve of Shabbat?

By inference, the first clause

of the Mishna, which states, “A donkey may go out with a saddlecloth when it is tied to it,” means

that it is tied to it before Shabbat.

And we conclude:

Learn from this!

A beraita likewise teaches: A donkey may go out with a saddlecloth when

it is

tied to it before Shabbat.

But it

may not go out

with a saddle, even though

the saddle

was tied to it before Shabbat,

because this is not the usual practice for the donkey, and for it the saddle is a burden.

Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says:

The donkey may go out

even with a saddle, when

it is

tied to it before Shabbat,

because the saddle also helps warm it and is not a burden.

Provided that one does not tie to it

the donkey

a masrikhan

[something resembling a comb],

and provided that one does not pass a strap under its tail.

The masrikhan is placed on the donkey so that the load will not fall onto its tail when it climbs in the mountains. The strap is placed on it so that the load will not fall onto its neck when it descends into a valley. Therefore, one may not tie these to it on Shabbat, because it appears that one intends to load a burden onto it.

Rav Asi bar Natan asked Rav Ḥiyya bar Rav Ashi: What is the ruling regarding placing

a saddlecloth on a donkey on Shabbat?

He was not asking about allowing the donkey to go out with it into the public domain, but about placing it on the donkey in a courtyard because of the cold.

He said to him: It is permitted.

He said to him: But what is the difference between this and

a

saddle,

which is prohibited?

He was silent,

Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi.

Rav Asi bar Natan understood that Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi was silent because he held that a saddle, too, may be placed on a donkey in a courtyard.

For this reason

he raised an objection from a source:

A beraita teaches:

A saddle that is on a donkey may not be moved by hand

in order to remove it from the donkey.

Rather, if one wishes to remove it, he unties its rope,

если он хочет снять его, пусть развяжет его верёвку

and leads it back and forth

with the donkey

in the courtyard,

to and fro,

and it

[the saddle]

falls off by itself!

And he concluded his objection:

Now, if regarding removing

the saddle from the donkey,

you said

that it may

not

be removed, then

regarding placing

the saddle on it,

is it necessary to say that this is prohibited? Placing it is more serious, because it resembles bringing a burden in order to load onto the donkey.

не нужно ли сказать, что запрещено?! Ведь положить тяжелее, поскольку это похоже на то, будто он пришёл нагрузить его ношей.

Rabbi Zeira said

to Rav Asi bar Natan:

Leave him alone,

Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi, because he

holds like his master,

namely, like

Rav.

For Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi said in the name of Rav: One may suspend a feed-basket

containing barley

for an animal

from its neck

on Shabbat. And one may certainly place a saddlecloth

on it, which is permitted.

This is because:

Just as there,

with regard to the feed-basket,

since it is for the animal’s pleasure

and it is suspended so that the animal will not have to strain by bending its neck down to the ground,

it is permitted;

here,

with regard to a saddlecloth,

since it is because of discomfort

from the cold that it is placed on the animal,

all the more so

is it permitted!

And Shmuel said:

Only placing

mardaat

is permitted, because of the animal’s discomfort. But suspending

for it

a feed-basket is prohibited,

because it is done only for pleasure.

Rav Ḥiyya bar Yosef went and recited

this

teaching of Rav

[who permits both a saddlecloth and a feed-basket]

before Shmuel.

Shmuel said to him:

Shmuel:

If this is so, Abba

(Rav),

did not know

anything

about the laws of Shabbat at all, since surely suspending a feed-basket is prohibited.

Shmuel said this because he considered it certain that suspending a feed-basket is prohibited.

When Rabbi Zeira went up

to the Land of Israel,

he found

Rav Binyamin bar Yefet, who was sitting and saying to him in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan:

Rav Binyamin bar Yefet sitting and saying in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan: “One may place a saddlecloth on a donkey on Shabbat!”

He said to him: Well done!

Your words are correct.

And so

also

“Aryokh” interpreted it in Babylonia,

as permitting one to place a saddlecloth on a donkey.

“Aryokh”

who is he?

Who is meant? It is

Shmuel!

He was called this because he was expert in laws and judged like a king who judges the land. “Rikha” is an expression denoting royalty.

And we considered this:

But Rav also stated it,

that it is permitted. Why, then, did Rabbi Zeira specifically mention Shmuel’s name?

And we answer:

Rather, he heard

Rav Binyamin

who concluded by saying: “But one may not suspend a feed-basket on Shabbat.”

And

regarding this

he said to him: “Well done! And so Aryokh interpreted it in Babylonia.”

But Rav disagreed and said that even suspending a feed-basket is permitted.

And we considered this:

Everyone

agrees

at least

that placing

mardaat

on a donkey

is permitted. And what is the difference between this and a saddle,

about which we learned above: “One may not move it by hand,” and certainly placing it on a donkey should be prohibited?

And we answer:

There it is different, because it is possible

to lead the donkey until

the saddle falls

off

by itself. But when it is impossible for the act to occur by itself, as when placing a saddlecloth, it is permitted to place it even by hand.

But when it is impossible for the matter to occur by itself, as in placing the pack saddle, it is permitted to place it even by hand.

Rav Pappa said: Here,

with regard to placing a saddlecloth, it is permitted because it is placed in order

to warm

the animal. But

here,

with regard to removing a saddle, it is prohibited because it is removed in order

to cool

the animal.

To warm

it is permitted because

it suffers

from the cold. But

to cool

it is prohibited because

it does not suffer

from the heat.

And this is what people say: “A donkey, even during the season of Tammuz,”

when

the sun is cool for it!”

They raise an objection from a source: “A horse may not go out with a fox’s tail

that is suspended between its eyes so that the evil eye will not affect it,

nor with a strip of crimson wool

[a strip of crimson wool made for adornment]

between its eyes!”

Anything made for adornment or as a protective charm, when this is not the animal’s usual practice, is considered a burden.

A man with a gonorrheal discharge may not go out

into the public domain

with his pouch,

which is hung from his organ so that the discharge will fall into it and he can count his emissions. After two sightings he is not yet a full zav and is not liable to bring an offering; only after three sightings does he bring an offering, after counting seven clean days and immersing for purification. He may not go out with it because he does not wear it as an ornament, and it is therefore a burden.

Nor

may

goats go out with a pouch on their udders,

either to collect the milk dripping from them or to prevent their udders from being scratched by thorns.

Nor

may

a cow go out with a muzzle on its mouth,

which is placed on it so that it will not graze in other people’s fields; when it reaches its grazing place, the muzzle is removed from its mouth. It may not go out with it because it is a burden for the cow.

Nor

may

young donkeys go out into the public domain with feed-baskets in their mouths.

Nor

may

an animal go out with a shoe on its foot,

[made for it so that stones will not injure it], because we are concerned that the shoe might come off, and its owner might carry it in the public domain.

And

likewise,

it may not

go out

with an amulet

[a written charm intended for healing].

Even though it is

[the amulet]

proven effective,

having already healed the animal three times.

And this

is a stringency concerning an animal as compared with a person.

The Gemara understood that the stringency concerns the amulet. We learn below that “a person may go out with a proven-effective amulet.” But in the case of an animal, the amulet is not considered protection of its body. Therefore, it is a burden.

But it may go out with a bandage on a wound and with splints on a fracture,

[when an animal has suffered a broken bone, boards are tied to it on both sides, holding the bone in place until it reconnects], because these protect its body and are not burdens. There is also no concern that they will fall and the owner will carry them.

And

the animal may also go out

with a placenta

that has partially emerged and

is hanging from it.

And one may plug

a bell

[a bell]

around its neck, and

it

may walk with it in the courtyard,

because the bell is filled with wool or rags so that the clapper inside will not rattle and make a sound. It is permitted specifically in a courtyard. But it may not go out with it into the public domain, as we learned below (54b).

And we challenge:

At least it teaches: “Nor young foals in baskets in their mouths into the public domain.”

It implies that specifically

into the public domain they may not

go out, because of a burden.

But in a courtyard it is entirely proper .

Is it not, with

foals

large

whose necks are long, and which can bend down and eat from the ground?

And

he does not hang the basket on their necks אלא

only for pleasure.

So that they will not need to exert themselves. And this is difficult for Shmuel, who prohibited it even in a courtyard.

And we answer:

No

large ones are being discussed. Rather,

small ones!

Since their knees are high and their necks are short, it causes them distress to bend down over the ground and eat.

And

anything that is

because of distress

is permitted.