Babylonian Talmud

Rodkinson 1918 — source 2, scan section 68

a tree is referred to, the branches of which were also part of the roof." The Mishna seems to have this meaning attributed to it by Rabba, for in a later clause it is stated, that should the tree (which partly supports the booth) be removed, and the booth can stand by itself, one may ascend it ; hence the tree is regarded as an independent wall. MISHNA : One may untie bundles of straw for cattle, also strew stalks for them, but one must not undo tied bundles of Zirin.* Herbs used as fodder, and carob-pods, must not be cut * This term will be explained in the Gemara farther on. 368 THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD. up for cattle, large or smalL R. Jehudah permits the cutting up of carob-pods for small cattle. GEMARA: Said R. Huna: " There is no difference between bundles of straw and stalks, except that the former are tied twice while the latter are trebly tied, and by Zirin is meant the young branches of a cedar-tree (which when young are still tender and are eaten by cattle); and the Mishna should be explained thus: One may untie bundles of straw for cattle, and also strew them, and the same may be done with stalks, but not with Zirin ; the latter must neither be untied nor strewn," Said R. Hisda: " What reason has R. Huna for explaining the Mishna in this manner ? He means to say, that on account of such things as are already proper fodder for cattle one may trouble himself on Sabbath, but on account of such as must first be prepared as fodder, one should not trouble himself." R. Jehudah, how- ever, says, that bundles of straw and Zirin are identical, except that the former were tied twice and the latter trebly, but stalks signify cedar boughs; and he explains the Mishna thus: " We may untie bundles of straw for cattle, but not strew them ; stalks may also be strewn ; the Zirin, however, may be untied, but not strewn." Said Rabha: "What is the reason for R. Jehudah's explanation ? He holds, that we may prepare things for the use of cattle, but we must not trouble ourselves on ac- count of such things as are already fit fodder for cattle." An objection was made to the foregoing (based on the latter clause of the Mishna): " Herbs used for fodder and carob-pods must not be cut up for cattle." As herbs are mentioned in con- junction with carob-pods, we must assume, that as the herbs were soft, so were also the carob-pods ; and, it being prohibited to cut them up, we see that with such things as are already proper fodder we must not trouble ourselves, and this is contrary to the dictum of R. Huna ? R. Huna might say to the contrary, that as the carob-pods are hard, so also are the herbs. Where do we find that herbs should be cut up for cattle, they generally eat them as they are ? This refers to young calves and mule-colts. (Another objection was raised.) Come and hear: One may cut up pumpkins for cattle and carrion for dogs. Then we may say, that as carrion is soft, so also are the pumpkins ; and hence we see, that we may trouble ourselves even with such articles as are already fit fodder for cattle, and this is contradictory to R. Jehudah's opinion ? R. Jehudah might say to the contrary, that as the pumpkins were hard, so was also the carrion. How TRACT SABBATH. 369 can that be ? Supposing it was the carcass of an elephant, or the dogs were young and could not eat carrion without having it cut up for them. MISHNA: A camel must not be crammed (to fatten it), nor may it be forced to eat : but the food may be put into its mouth. Calves must not be crammed, but the food may be put into their mouths. Poultry may be fed and crammed ; water may be poured on bran, but the bran must not be kneaded. One must not put water before bees, or before doves in a dove-cot ; but one may put it before geese, before poultry, and before house- pigeons. GEMARA: What is meant by " must not be crammed " ? Said R. Jehudah: " By that is meant, that the stomach of the camel should not be turned into a feed-bag." Can such a thing be done ? Said R. Jeremiah of Diphti: " Yea; I saw with my own eyes, that an itinerant merchant fed his camel a meas- ure of grain, and when it had consumed that, he forced another measure down its throat." ' ' Calves must not be crammed, but the food tnay be put into their mouths y' etc. What is the difference between cramming and putting food into the calf's mouth? R. Jehudah said, that cramming is accomplished when the food is stuffed down into the calf's mouth so that it cannot eject it, and putting food into its mouth is merely as is implied by the term ; and R. Hisda said, that in both cases the food is forced down so far that the calf cannot eject it ; but in cramming, some instrument is used, and the other is done by hand. R. Joseph objected : We have learned in a Boraitha, that poultry may be crammed, and so much the more food may be given to the poultry a little at a time. The contrary is the case with doves. Food must not be given them even a little at a time, and much less may they be crammed. Now what is the difference between cramming and forcing them to eat a little at a time ? Shall we assume that by cramming is meant, forcing the food down by hand, and by giving them food a little at a time is meant, throwing it to them ? If so, why should doves not be fed in that manner ? Is it then prohibited to throw them food ? We must therefore say, that in both cases the food is given by hand, but in cramming the food is forced down so that it cannot be ejected, while in the other case it can be ejected. If this applies to poultry, then we must certainly assume that, as for calves, cramming is done by forcing the food down with an in- 370 THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD. strument, and this would be contradictory to R. Jehudah ? R. Jehudah might say, that by feeding poultry is meant, throwing food to them ; and the reason that one must not feed doves is because they do not belong to him, whereas poultry belongs to him and must be fed by him, as we have learned in a Boraitha, that one may give food to a dog but not to a pig; and the reason is, that a man is in duty bound to feed his dog, but a pig that he does not own he need not feed. Said R. Ashi : " This we also learn from our Mishna: * One must not put it before bees, or before doves in a dove-cot ; but we may put it before geese, poultry, and house-pigeons.* " We must assume the reason of the Mishna to be because one is not obliged to take care of the bees and doves, but must take care of those which he owns. According to this, then, why is water only spoken of, why not wheat or barley ? We must say that water is easily obtainable, and hence there is no necessity to trouble one's self on that account. R. Jonah taught at the door of Nassi : It is written [Prov-