Ask A Question about the Daf

Previous daf

Shabbos 53

1) A DONKEY GOING OUT WITH ITS SADDLE PAD

QUESTION: A donkey with a saddle pad ("Marda'as") may be taken into Reshus ha'Rabim only if the saddle pad was tied to it on Friday, before Shabbos.

If a saddle pad is considered attire (and not a load), what difference does it make whether it was placed on the donkey before or during Shabbos?

ANSWERS:

(a) RASHI (54b, DH k'd'Amran) says that one must demonstrate that this donkey generally wears the saddle pad as its attire. By putting it on the donkey on Friday (and leaving it there for an extended period of time), one shows that it is a garment and not just a burden.

(b) TOSFOS (DH v'Hu sh'Keshurah) suggests two other explanations. The first is that if one ties the saddle pad to the donkey on Shabbos, it looks like one's intention is to *transport the saddle pad* from one place to another (which is forbidden), and not merely to take the donkey for a walk.

(c) In his second explanation, TOSFOS (in the name of Rabeinu Poras) says that tying the saddle pad to the animal on Shabbos gives the appearance that one intends to take the *animal for a long ride* on Shabbos.

(d) The RASHBA and ROSH cite the Yerushalmi that says that tying on the saddle-pad is forbidden because of "Mishtamesh b'Ba'alei Chayim." That is, while tying the saddle pad to the donkey, one leans on the donkey and uses it, which is forbidden mid'Rabanan on Shabbos.

According to the explanation of the Rashba, that one may not tie the saddle pad to the donkey on Shabbos because of the problem of "Mishtamesh b'Ba'alei Chayim," what, then, is the Gemara asking later when it inquires whether it is permitted to put a saddle pad on a donkey [inside a courtyard] without intention to take the donkey outside? If putting the saddle pad on the donkey violates the prohibition against using an animal on Shabbos, what difference does it make whether it will remain in the courtyard?

We could answer that the Gemara later does not mean to differentiate between putting a saddle pad on a donkey that is going *outside*, and putting a saddle pad on a donkey that is staying *inside*. Rather, the Gemara is differentiating between *placing* a saddle pad on the donkey, and *tying* it to the animal. The Gemara wants to know if it is permitted to *place* a saddle pad on a donkey on Shabbos, because one does not lean on the animal when he merely places the pad on its back. (M. Kornfeld -- This answer is supported by the text of our Gemara, which earlier says "Keshurah" (tied) and later says "Liten" (to place). It is also implicit in the words of the Me'iri.)

53b

QUESTION: In an attempt to prove that the Rabanan did not uphold their decrees if it would cause pain to one's animal, the Gemara cites a Beraisa that says that if a man sees his animal standing outside its Techum, he may call it to come home, and the Rabanan were not afraid that he might go and bring the animal with his hands, thus transgressing the Isur of Techumim on Shabbos. Apparently the Rabanan did not enforce such a decree, since it would cause the animal to become lost from its owner and to be in pain.

The Gemara answers that this is no proof, because the Beraisa is talking about a case where the animal's Techum was inside the owner's Techum. Therefore, he is allowed to call the animal to come home, and there is no fear that he will go and bring the animal.

The Gemara implies that it is only permitted to *call* the animal home. It is forbidden to go and *bring* the animal home (by pulling it, or even by chasing it). Why is it forbidden? And if it is forbidden, why indeed is there no fear that the person will go bring the animal, instead of just calling it?

ANSWERS:
There are three concerns in this case. (1) A man is not allowed to walk outside *his Techum*. (2) Any object may not be moved out of the *Techum of the owner* (or trustee) of that object. Hence, a cow that is given to a shepherd may only be moved as far as the shepherd can travel. (It does not matter who is moving it; the limits of an object's Techum are determined by the Techum of its master.) (3) A man is not allowed to have *his animal do Melachah* for him on Shabbos because of the Mitzvas Aseh of "Shevisas Behemto." Perhaps he may also not allow his animal to be leave its Techum in order to return home, for this reason. (This prohibition would apply even if the owner does not *take* the animal out of its Techum. It would be prohibited to *allow* one's animal to leave Techum Shabbos.)

(a) RASHI explains that initially, the Gemara thought that the animal was outside of the owner's Techum, and the Isur involved was that the owner would go out of his Techum (#1 above). The animal itself, though, was not necessarily outside of its Techum.

The Gemara answers that the animal is within the man's Techum, but outside of its own Techum. So the owner is not allowed to bring the animal to his home, because he will be taking the shepherd's object (the animal) outside of the shepherd's Techum (#2 above). But that Isur, explains Rashi, is a weaker Isur than taking *oneself* out of one's own Techum. For such a weak Isur, the Rabanan did not make a decree out of fear that one may go and bring the animal.

Concerning the third concern, that the animal is walking out of his Techum for the owner's benefit (to bring the animal home), Rashi explains that the Isur of "Shevisas Behemto" includes only preventing the animal from doing any of the 39 Melachos. One is permitted, though, to let his animal walk out of its Techum. Therefore, one is permitted to call the animal, but not to actively bring it with one's hands (because then he is transgressing #2, taking the object out of its Techum).

(b) The RITVA explains exactly the opposite from the way that Rashi explained. Originally, the Gemara thought that the animal was outside of its own Techum (whether or not it was within the owner's Techum). The only way to bring it home is by calling it and causing the animal to transgress the Isur of Techumim (#3 above), by walking outside of its Techum. Even though the Torah does not prohibit causing an animal to transgress the Isur of Techumim, the Rabanan prohibited it. However, since it is not such a strong prohibition, the Rabanan permitted calling it back to its Techum in order to prevent causing pain to the animal.

Why were the Rabanan not afraid that the owner will take the animal back home by hand (or by chasing it), transgressing #2 above by taking it out of its Techum, as well as carrying an object (= the animal) 4 Amos in Reshus ha'Rabim? It must be that the Rabanan did not enforce decrees when it would cause pain to an animal. This is the Gemara's attempted proof.

The Gemara answers that the animal is not outside its own Techum, it is just outside of the *owner's* Techum (like the Gemara's original understanding according to Rashi). That is why the owner may not make the animal move by physically going out to the animal and leading or chasing it, but he may call it to make it move. By calling it, he is not transgressing any prohibition whatsoever, because the animal is inside of its Techum.

(If this is the case, there is no fear that the owner will think that it is also permitted to go out of his Techum to fetch the animal, or that he will transgress an Isur d'Oraisa by pulling the animal four Amos in Reshus ha'Rabim. We were only afraid of such a thing happening in the original scenario, where the Rabanan permitted #3 above for the well-being of the animal. In the present scenario, since the owner was not permitted to transgress *any trace of* a rabbinical prohibition, there is no fear that he will think that it is permitted to do an Isur d'Oraisa or d'Rabanan for his animal.)