Previous daf

1)

(a) One may not allow one's animal to go out into the street with accessories which are not tied, because they might fall off, and we are afraid that the owner will then pick them up and carry them in the Reshus ha'Rabim.

(b) The Mishnah writes 'Ein ha'Chamor Yotzei be'Merda'as, bi'Zeman she'Einah Keshurah Lo'. Now we do not need a Mishnah to inform us that the donkey should not be allowed to go out with the saddle-cloth loose, because we already know about the fear that what is not tied, may fall off etc. What the Mishnah must therefore mean is that one should not allow the donkey to go out with its saddle-cloth not tied on - already *before* Shabbos (i.e. it is too late to tie it on now).

(c) No! The Tana Kama of the Beraisa maintains that one may *not* allow a donkey to go with a saddle in the street, even if it is tied, because a saddle is a burden.

(d) u'Vilevad she'Lo Yikshor Lo Masrichan' refers to a sort of strap that one ties around its chest and on to the load that it is carrying, to prevent the load from sliding back towards its tail, when it climbs uphill; and 'u'Vilevad she'Lo Yifshol Lo Retzu'ah', to a strap that one ties below its tail, and to the load that it is carrying, to prevent it from slipping on to its neck, when it walks *down* a steep slope.
Both of these are forbidden so that people will not say that the owner intends to place a load on the donkey's back on Shabbos.

(a) When they asked Rav Chiya bar Ashi what the difference was between a saddle-cloth and a saddle - with regard to placing them on the donkey's back on Shabbos, he did not answer.

(b) They translated his silence to mean that one may even put a saddle in place on Shabbos too; to which they responded by asking from the Beraisa, which expressly forbids even the *removal* of a saddle on Shabbos, how much more so *putting it it is place*?

(c) 'Leave him', said Rebbi Zeira. 'He holds like his Rebbi - Rav' (who permits placing even a food-bag - which is purely for the donkey's *convenience*, and is quite dispensable; how much more so a saddle, which is a *necessity* as far as the donkey is concerned, because a dankey is cold for twelve months of the year.

(d) One removes a saddle on Shabbos by taking the donkey into the courtyard, and untying it, to let it fall by itself.

(a) When Shmuel heard that Rav permitted placing a Teraskal around the donkey's neck on Shabbos, he exclaimed that 'if that is what Aba really said, then he knows nothing about Shabbos'.

(b) Shmuel referred to Rav as 'Aba', because he was his friend - which is one of the meanings of 'Aba'.

(c) Rebbi Binyamin bar Yefes quoted Rebbi Yochanan as saying that one may put a saddle-cloth on a donkey on Shabbos, but not a food-bag. Rebbi Zeira gave him a 'Yasher Ko'ach', since that is precisely what Shmuel said in Bavel.

(d) 'Aryoch' refers to Shmuel, who was an expert in all money matters, and would judge with the authority of a King - 'Aryoch' is a derivative of 'Reicha', which means 'a King' (similar to the Latin word 'Rex' - See also, Mesores ha'Shas).

(a) It is forbidden to remove a saddle, because it is possible to let it fall off by itself, as we wrote above; and, in addition, the purpose of removing it is for the animal to get cold - a donkey does not need the incentive of having its saddle removed, since it is cold all the year round.

(b) Since the Beraisa forbids foals to go out *into the street* with a Teraskal tied around its neck, we can infer that it is permitted to do so in a courtyard. In that case, how can Shmuel forbid it?

(c) Shmuel answers this Kashya by establishing the Beraisa by *young* foals, for whom a Teraskal is not only a convenience, but a necessity - since, due to their short necks and long legs, they have difficulty in bending down to eat from the ground, in which case it is permitted (like the saddle-cloth of a donkey).

(a) The purpose of hanging ...

1. ... a fox's tail between a horse's eyes is to counteract 'Ayin ha'Ra'.
2. ... a red thread between the horse's eyes is a form of ornament.

(b) It is forbidden to go with them into the street on Shabbos.

(c) A Zav is forbidden to carry his bag into the street, as is a horse with its shoe (which is presumably detachable) and an animal wearing a proven Kemei'a.
But a man wearing a Kemei'a which is proven, an animal wearing something which covers its wound, a splint for its broken bone or with a placenta that has partially emerged (which presumably, the owner is unlikely to pick up and carry, should it fall out), *may*.

(d) The latter list is more lenient than the former, since they are needed to protect the animal, and one is unlikely to come to carry them, since there is no reason to assume that they will fall off.

(e) An animal is permitted to go with a bell around its neck in the courtyard (but not in the street), provided the striker has been removed.

6)

(a) An animal, like a person, is permitted to go out with a Kamei'a which is proven to work for animals. When the Beraisa forbids it 'Af Al Pi she'Hu Mumcheh', it means 'Mumcheh' for a person, because a Kemei'a that has been proven for a person is not necessarily proven for an animal.

(b) We cannot explain the Beraisa to mean that even if the Kamei'a is proven for animals, it is forbidden, since we have learnt in another Beraisa that then it is permitted.

(c) Chazal have said that 'Adam Is Lei Mazla' - meaning that he has a certain protection (possibly the two angels who constantly accompany him); whereas 'Beheimah Les Lei Mazla'. Consequently, a Kamei'a which is proven for a person, is not necessarily proven for animals.

(d) When the Beraisa writes 'Zeh Chomer bi'Veheimah mi'be'Adam', it is referring , not to the Din of Kamei'a, but to that of a shoe, with which a human may go out, but not an animal.

(a)

1. 'Ein Sachin u'Mefarchesin' means that one is not permitted to anoint an animal with oil, or to rub the scabs of its wound, but the Beraisa is speaking, not *before* the wound has healed (in which case it would be permitted to do this - to alleviate the pain), but *afterwards*, and the purpose of the treatment is for the animal's pleasure.
2. And 'Beheimah she'Achzo Dam, Ein Ma'amidin Osah be'Mayim Bishevil she'Titztanen' - is forbidden because it is a cure, and cures are forbidden (even with regard to animals) because of the decree of 'Shechikas Samemanim' - that one may come to grind the necessary medicines on Shabbos (a decree that applies equally, to animals' cures).

(b) Rav has no way of explaining the Beraisa of 'Ein Sachin' etc. (which certainly forbids anointing - either (even) *during* the wound stage, or (specifically) *after* the wound has healed) to conform with his opinion in Teraskel, which he permits because of pleasure.
Therefore the Gemara is forced to resort to the answer; 'Rav Tana Hu u'Palig'.

(c) It is permitted for a *person* to stand in cold water when he has diarrhea, because it is not evident that he is doing this as a cure; he could just as well be doing it to cool down (which would be permitted). Whereas by an animal, it is evident that it is being stood in the water as a cure, and is therefore forbidden.

(a) If even decrees which involve a loss (such as not not being to stand one's sick animal in water, for fear that he may come to grind medicines) pertain to animals too, then why does the Beraisa permit one to call his animal from outside the Techum, where it has strayed? Why do we not decree there too, that the owner might leave the Techum, to go and fetch it?

(b) That Beraisa, answers the Gemara, is speaking in a case where the animal had strayed from the Techum of the shepherd in whose charge it was (and whose Techum it follows), but was still within that of the owner. Consequently, the concern that the owner might leave his Techum to fetch his animal, is non-existent.

(c) Alternatively, whether or not, such decrees pertain to one's animals (i.e. whether we go so far as to suspect that a Jew might break the Shabbos for the sake of his animal), is a Machlokes Tana'im. Rebbi Yashiyah disagrees with the Tana Kama of the Beraisa who forbids one to allow one's animal to run around the courtyard on Shabbos in order to loosen its bowels, because of the decree of grinding medicines. *He* permits it. Consequently, Rebbi Yashiyah will be the author of the Beraisa who permits the owner to call his animal from outside the Techum - even *his own* Techum!

(a) The Beraisa permits one to allow a goat to go out with a bag tied around its teats provided it is tied tightly - so that we need not worry that the bag may fall off, and he will come to carry it.

(b) The author of both Beraisos could be Rebbi Yehudah; the Beraisa which *forbids* goats to go out is speaking when the bag is tied there to receive the milk which drips from the teats, in which case it is a burden and is forbidden (see Tosfos, d.h. 'Ka'n', and see Rashi at the foot of 52b, who seems to contradict himself); whereas the Beraisa which *permits*, is speaking about a bag which is tied tightly (to cause the milk to dry up), where the reasons to forbid it do not apply, as we discussed in our Mishnah, earlier.

(a) Abaye claimed that for a man to breast-feed his own baby (when Hashem could just as well have performed a 'natural' miracle - by providing him with the means for paying for a wet-nurse), is not praiseworthy, but degrading (because it detracts heavily from the reward due to him for good deeds, as we learnt above in 'Bameh Madlikin' - Agados Maharsha).

(b) Rav Yehudah commented that we can see from here how difficult Parnasah is (how hard Hashem has to work - Kevayachol - ['ki'Keri'as Yam-Suf]) to provide everyone with Parnasah, since he preferred to change nature for this man (rather than provide him with Parnasah in a more natural way). Rav Nachman added that we can learn the same lesson from the lives of Tzadikim, for whom Hashem often provides their needs in a miraculous way, rather than to simply order food to appear in their storehouses.

(c) Rebbi Chiya commented about that lame woman, that it was not the woman who who was praiseworthy (since both due to the fact that women are generally more modest than men, and because this woman in particular, had every reason to hide her deformity), but the man, who lived all those years with his wife, and never discovered that she was lame.

(a) "Libavtini Achosi Kalah" is the words of Hashem to Yisrael, and it means that Yisrael brought Hashem close to them, by virtue of their beautiful deeds.
'Levuvin' in the Mishnah too, has the connotation of closeness, because it refers to two rams who are tied together, to prevent them from running away.

(b) According to Ula, 'Levuvin' (from the word 'Lev') refers to a piece of leather which they would place over the ram's heart, to prevent the wolves from attacking it (because wolves tend to go for the rams' hearts). The Mishnah writes specifically rams (and not ewes), because the rams stick their noses in the air, and look from side to side, conveying the impression that the rams are about to attack *them*. So they attack first.

(c) The reason that the wolves attack specifically the rams, cannot be ascribed to the fact they go at the head of the flock, because who says that the wolves confine their attacks to the head of the flock? Sometimes they attack from the back?
Nor can it be because the rams are fatter, because that is not always the case. Sometimes, it is the ewes which are fatter?

(a) The Gemara prefers Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak's interpretation of 'Levuvin' (that it is a piece of leather tied underneath their male organs to prevent them from going on the females), because then it is similar to the 'Shechuzos' of the ewes (which is the next case mentioned in the Mishnah). 'Shechuzos' means with their tails tied on to their backs (leaving their female organs revealed), to encourage the males to come on them.

(b) The Gemara proves from the Pasuk "ve'Hinei Ishah Likeraso Shis Zonah u'Netzuras Lev", that 'Shechuzos' means 'revealed', since that is the acronym of "Shis Zonah".