Previous daf

1)

(a) Rav Huna permits loosening or scattering the bundles of hay that have been tied at both ends, or in the middle as well - for the animals, but not to loosen or scatter bundles of soft willow branches. The reason for this is because soft willow branches are normally designated for firewood, and untying them actually transfers them into food, which is forbidden (mi'de'Rabbanan) because of Nolad; whereas bundles of hay are already considered animal fodder, and untying them only constitutes Tircha, which Chazal permitted with regard to feeding animals.

(b) According to Rav Yehudah, it is Tircha that Chazal forbade (which is why he forbids scattering bales of hay once they have been untied. He permits however, loosening them, because, in his opinion, that constitutes turning it into a food (even though Rav Huna considers it Tircha - which is why he permits it. See Tosfos DH 'Rav Yehudah'). Regarding soft willow branches, even scattering them is permitted, because otherwise, they would not be considered food.

(c) We have just given one explanation why both Rav Huna and Rav Yehudah agree that one is permitted to loosen all the kinds under discussion. Tosfos, in their second explanation, say that both Amora'im agree that loosening bales of hay constitutes neither turning something into food nor excessive Tircha, which is why both agree that it is permitted.

(d) Just as fodder is soft, Rav Yehudah explains, so too are the carobs mentioned in our Mishnah soft - and since the Mishnah forbids cutting them up finely, we can see that excessive Tircha is forbidden by animal food.

(a) According to Rav Huna - we will say the opposite: just as carobs are hard, so too is the fodder hard, and not fit to be used as animal food.

(b) For most animals, no fodder is too hard to be termed a food - except for young fillies, for whom cutting up the fodder is vital, turning it into a food. That is why, according to Rav Huna, it is forbidden to do so on Shabbos.

(c) The Gemara attempts to explain that Dakah in our Mishnah does not mean a small animal at all (because according to Rebbi Yehudah there is no difference between a small animal and a large one) - what he does mean is an animal which chews its food well.

(d) The Gemara rejects this explanation - on the basis of the Tana Kama, who explicitly forbids cutting up the carobs for either a small animal or a large one. And it is with the Tana Kama that Rebbi Yehudah is arguing. Consequently, just as the Tana Kama obviously meant Dakah when he wrote Dakah, so too, did Rebbi Yehudah.

3)

(a) If the pumpkins (like Neveilah) are soft (and are already considered food), then, when the Mishnah permits cutting them up for the animals, it is ruling that Tircha is permitted for animals, which disproves Rav Yehudah, in whose opinion Tircha is forbidden?

(b) Rav Yehudah answers - that we do not say 'Delu'in Dumya de'Beheimah', but 'Beheimah Dumya de'Delu'in' (i.e. that they are both hard), and are therefore not considered animal-food until they have been cut up.

(c) A carcass can be too hard for animals to eat - either when we are speaking of elephant-flesh, or if the animal referred to is specifically puppies, for whom all flesh is too hard, unless it has been softened.

(d) The Beraisa, which permits breaking up hay and Aspasta and mixing them - is speaking when they have already begun to go off (and becoming putrid), so, unless one breaks it up for the animals, they will not eat it (and Rav Yehudah permits turning something into a food for an animal on Shabbos).

(a) Ovsin means - to stuff the food down the animal's throat, creating a sort of feeding-trough (Eivus) in its stomach.

(b) According to Rav Chisda - both Hamra'ah and Hal'atah mean stuffing the food to a point where the calf is unable to eject it; but Hamra'ah is performed with a ladle, Hal'atah with the hand (which the Tana permits).

(a) The Gemara initially thinks that if Mehalketin means to *feed* the birds, and Malkitin, to *throw the grains* in front of them - then how can the Beraisa go on to forbid even Likut by pigeons of the loft or of the dove-cot? Why should there be any Isur in throwing food in front of them?

(b) Consequently, 'Mehalketin le'Tarnegolin' must mean to stuff the food to a point where the bird is unable to return it, and Malkitin to a point where it can. Now if Mehalketin means to stuff the food to a point where the bird (or the animal) is unable to return it, then Hamra'ah must mean to do the same thing, but using a ladle (which is how Rav Chisda explained the Reisha of the Mishnah, leaving us with a Kashya on Rav Yehudah).

(c) Rav Yehudah maintains that one is forbidden even to throw the grains in front of wild birds, because it is not our job to feed them (since there is plenty of food available to them outside) - and consequently, this constitutes unnecessary Tircha.

(d) Homing-pigeons, which are the owner's property, so to speak, and which rely on him for food, and not included in the prohibition.

(a) One may feed a dog on Shabbos - because the onus of feeding it lies on the owner, but not a pig (even one's own) - because Chazal issued a curse on anyone who rears pigs, Consequently, the onus of feeding them does not lie with the owner.

(b) Rav Ashi attempts to prove that one may feed animals who rely on humans for food, but not those that don't - from our Mishnah - which forbids placing water in front of bees and pigeons in the dove-cots, but permits doing so for ducks, chickens and homing-pigeons.

(c) According to Rav Chisda, it is forbidden to place water in front of bees and pigeons in the dove-cots - because water is readily available to them in the ponds, whereas food is not always so easy for them to obtain.

(d) He learns like this - because the Mishnah mentions water, and not food.

(a) The reason that food remains intact inside a dog's stomach for three days - is because Hashem, knowing that people are loathe to feed dogs, decreed that it should. This is even hinted in the Pasuk in Mishlei "Yada Tzadik (Hashem) Din Dalim (the dog)".

(b) This has Halachic ramifications with regard to Tum'ah, inasmuch as up to three days, flesh of a dead person inside a dog's stomach is still considered flesh, and is Metamei be'Ohel - should the dog die within that period (Tum'ah Belu'ah is not Metamei inside a *live* animal).

(c) We also learn from here that it is Derech Eretz to throw a dog a bone ('Mah Hu Rachum, Af Ata Rachum'). One is however, advised to follow this by giving its ear a gentle pull and hitting it with a stick, if one wishes to avoid it becoming a regular guest.

(d) This act of kindness is confined however, to a *strange* dog, not to one that is domicile in one's town, because (even after the ear-pulling and hitting with a stick, it appears) the dog will become a regular visitor.

(a) The poorest of all animals is the dog (because he never has sufficient to eat and is always hungry), whilst the richest is the pig, which is always well-fed (because it eats anything and because everyone feeds it).

(b) For Hamra'ah, one makes the animal crouch and stuffs in oats and water simultaneously; whereas for Hal'atah, the animal remains standing and it is fed the oats and the water separately.

(c) According to Rebbi, one is not permitted to add water to bran, even if one does not mix it.

(d) No! It is not feasible to say that Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Yehudah agrees with Rebbi that one is Chayav for adding water to bran (because they do not mix) - since we have a Beraisa in which Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Yehudah explicitly permits adding water even to bran.