Siman 305

Regarding an animal, there are two Torah prohibitions and one rabbinic prohibition. The Torah prohibitions are: the resting of one's animal, which means that it shall not carry any burden upon it on Shabbat and shall not go in a wagon, as it is written: "so that your ox and your donkey may rest." And it is not specifically an ox or a donkey, and the same law applies to all types of domestic animals, wild animals, and birds when they belong to an Israelite—it is forbidden for the owners to allow any burden to be placed upon them. And even if another person places a burden upon it, he is obligated to remove it from it. And the obligation is specifically regarding lifting and placing, similar to a person. And he was commanded only regarding his own animal, and not regarding the animal of a non-Jew. And the second is the prohibition of mechamer, which means that it is carrying a burden and he is driving it from behind. And this is derived by us from "you shall not do any labor, you and your animal" (Exodus 20:10), and what is the labor that is performed by both of them—one must say this is mechamer (Rashi 153a). And this is forbidden even with the animal of a non-Jew, and we have already explained this in siman 266, section 10, see there, and there we explained why both matters are necessary, see there. And the prohibition that is rabbinic is that one may not make use of his animal at all on Shabbat, which means leaning on it and the like. Now, the law of mechamer was explained there, and the law of making use will be explained in this siman and in siman 339. And the primary laws of this siman concern the resting of one's animal, that it should not carry a burden upon it. And women are equal to men regarding the resting of an animal just as in all laws of Shabbat, and it is explicitly stated so in the Mishnah at the end of the chapter "Bameh Behemah," regarding the cow of the neighbor of Rabbi Elazar ben Azaryah, see there.

The essence of this matter requires clarification, for there are things that she is compelled to carry, such as for the sake of her protection, since without this she would not be protected at all, and consequently this thing is not included in the category of a burden, just as a garment for a person is not included in the category of a burden. And there are things she needs for warmth, such as the donkey which is cold by nature and requires a saddlecloth to warm it, and it is obvious that this is like a garment for a person. Similarly, if one places something upon them for some benefit, such as upon sheep so that their wool does not become soiled, or to protect their milk, or so that males do not mount them, and similar things to these—they are like a garment for a person. For even though this is not a need for the animal itself but for the person, nevertheless it is called her own need, just as with a thing by which she is protected; for she also would not care about this because she lacks intellect, but if she had intellect, she would desire this, therefore it is called her garment. This is to exclude a burden—which is labor and is like a melakha, and regarding this the Torah said: "You shall not do [any work]... so that your ox and your donkey may rest." But in all the things we have reckoned, it is rest for her soul since she derives a benefit from it; this is the general principle of these matters.

And thus the sages said: Anything that is for its guarding is permitted, and if it is not guarded by this, it is a burden, for she has no benefit from this regarding the matter of guarding. And any excessive guarding is also a burden, since she is guarded with less than this. And specifically when it is evident that it is excessive guarding, but if it is not so evident, even though it is possible that she would be guarded with slightly less than this—nevertheless, it is impossible to be so exact and precise, for such is the way of the world (Beit Yosef in the name of Rabbeinu Yerucham and the Semak and the Terumah). And similarly, anything that is for beauty, such as hanging ornaments on horses—it is forbidden, for this is not like a garment, as there are no ornaments for an animal. And some say that beauty that is common during the weekday is permitted, for this is like a garment, and only beauty that she is not accustomed to during the weekday, but rather that some people do so occasionally (Ran chapter 5). But the Tosafot hold that every type is forbidden, and such is the primary ruling. And it appears to me that even according to the "some say," it is only regarding beauty that she is accustomed to not during the time of work, but regarding beauty that is during the time of work, such as the wealthy who adorn their horses at the time they ride them or travel in a carriage—it is obvious that it is forbidden, for this is beauty of a load. And these are the details of this siman, and the entire chapter "Bameh Behemah" in the fifth chapter of Shabbat was established upon this, see there.

Therefore, the female camel, which requires more guarding than a male camel, goes out with a nose-ring. This means they take an iron ring, pierce its nose in its youth, and insert it into its nose, and it is guarded by it (see Derishah). And the Libyan donkey, a donkey that comes from the land of Libya, as it is written: "Put and Libya were your helpers." Rabbenu Tam explained that this is Egypt (51a), and it appears to me that this is a part of Egypt, for there it is written "Cush and Egypt were her strength and there was no end; Put and Libya etc.," and if so, it is not Egypt itself but rather a part of the country. And it is stronger, and requires an iron bit that they insert between the tops of its cheeks (Perishah), and a bit is a bridle that is placed on its head and its cheeks, and in the language of the Mishnah it is a *perumbiya*. And the camel goes out with a halter, which is a bridle of rope (Aruch), and a mule, a donkey, and a horse go out with a halter or with a bridle but not with both; so it is written in the Tur and Shulchan Aruch section 1. And they raised a difficulty, for with a bridle there is no permission except for a Libyan donkey (Turei Zahav sub-section 2), and there are those who erased "donkey" from the books (Bach and Magen Avraham sub-section 2). But in truth there is no need for this, for we explicitly find in Bava Metzia (9a): "This one acquired a donkey and its bit-house," see there; thus it is the way of an ordinary donkey to have this. But in truth the explanation of the Aruch on this (entry 'Pag'): straps of a tether placed on its cheeks and on its forehead there; "bridle" is a general term whether it is made of straps of ropes or leather or of iron. And regarding the Libyan donkey, the Gemara was precise to say "an iron bit," whereas an ordinary donkey has a bit but not of iron. And it is permitted to wind the rope of the halter around its neck and it may go out in it, for such is its way during the week, and this is not called excessive guarding. And it is permitted to handle the halter and place it upon it and it is not muktzah, since it is needed for this. Provided that he does not lean upon it, for it is forbidden to make use of animals as has been written. And anything that is a garment of an animal is not subject to muktzah, and it is permitted to put it on just as it is permitted to feed it and give it drink.

If one tied a rope to the mouth of a horse—it is not guarded by it, for it slips from its mouth, and it is not similar to a halter which is tied to its head and does not slip; and since it is not guarded by it—it is a burden. And conversely, an ordinary donkey is forbidden to go out with a prumbia, which is an iron bit, and it is excessive guarding. However, a donkey whose habits are bad, which is wild and requires more guarding—it is permitted to go out with it. And so too any animal whose habits are bad, even though all members of its species do not require strong guarding, nevertheless since it requires it—it is permitted to go out with it. And all owners of a shir, such as hunting dogs and small animals that have a kind of bracelet around their necks, and a ring is fixed in it and they insert a strap in it and pull it by it—it is permitted for them to go out with the shir wrapped around their necks and they can pull them by them, and this deals with a case where there is guarding in the wrappings, so that if it wants to flee he can catch it by the wrapping of the halter. And the wrapping must be loose, so that he can insert his hand (Tosafot 52a, s.v. "o"), but for mere ornament—it is forbidden. And Rashi, of blessed memory, explained there that even for mere ornament, since such is their way during the week—it is permitted, see there, and we have already explained this in section 3 (and see Bach). But a dog that is not for hunting—it is forbidden to go out with the ring that is on its neck. And there is room to doubt in a place where they do this as a sign that the dog has owners, for if it does not have a ring on its neck it is a sign that it has no owners and they kill it, whether it is permitted to go out with it or not. And it appears that it is forbidden, and there is proof from what will be explained that roosters do not go out with strings that are made as a sign so that they do not switch them, which implies that anything made as a sign—is a burden.

The rams go out with leather covers, which is a skin tied beneath their male organ so that they do not mount the females, in order that they do not become lean. And the ewes go out tied up, and this is the opposite, for they tie their tails upward so that the males will mount them, and they will conceive and give birth. And they go out wrapped, which is when they tie a cloth around them to protect the wool so that it remains clean. And goats go out bound, which is when they tie the ends of their udders. And this is specifically when the tying is in order that their udders dry up and they do not produce milk so that the goat becomes fat, for then they tie it tightly. But if the tying is in order to protect their milk so that it does not fall to the ground—it is forbidden, for for this purpose one does not tie it well, as they are afraid to tie it tightly, since from this comes the drying up and his desire is that she produce milk; therefore we fear perhaps it will fall and he will come to carry it. And one should not ask how it is possible that two opposites would be considered for their needs, for certainly it is so, as there are goats that are fat by nature—their benefit is that they produce milk, and the lean ones—their benefit is that they do not produce milk. Furthermore, since they are the property of man, whatever man desires for his benefit is considered for them like a garment. And this is specifically when the matter concerns the essence of the animal's body, but that which they do for a sign is a burden, as I have written.

The donkey is by its nature cold and requires warmth, as people say: "A donkey—even in the season of Tammuz it is cold for him," and therefore he always carries upon him a marda'at, which is like a small saddle. And he may go out with a marda'at that is tied to his body, for if it is not tied, there is a concern that it may fall and he will come to carry it. But to tie it upon him on Shabbat is forbidden, because at the time of tying one must lean on its body and he is making use of animals; therefore, it must be tied upon him from the eve of Shabbat. But all other animals are forbidden, as they do not require warmth and it is a burden, and even for the donkey, to place a saddle upon him is forbidden even if it was tied to him from the eve of Shabbat, for it does not provide warmth as it is only for a load. And on Shabbat it is permitted to place a marda'at upon him to walk in a courtyard, as it does not require tying, and in merely placing it he will not need to lean on its body. And so too in a city where there is an eruv—it is permitted to go out, and so too all the things that it was explained are forbidden to go out with due to a burden—this is only in a place where there is no eruv, but in a place with an eruv it is permitted with everything, for it is no different than a person, as I wrote in siman 266. But upon a horse—it is forbidden to place a marda'at at all even in a courtyard, for since he does not require it, it appears as if he wants to load a burden upon him. And to remove a marda'at on Shabbat is forbidden whether from the donkey or from the horse, for since they have no pain if they do not remove it—it is an unnecessary exertion. And a saddle—it is forbidden whether to remove or whether to place, whether on a donkey or whether on a horse, for the reason of unnecessary exertion.

And at a time when the cold is great and there is pain for the horse because of the chill—its law is like that of a donkey (Taz subsection 6), and similarly during the summer days when the flies bite it—it is permitted to place something upon it to prevent the biting of the flies (ibid.). And regarding a saddle that is upon the donkey that came from the road and became weary and one needs to remove it to cool it—he should not take it off with his hand, for even though it has a bit of pain from the heat of the burden of the saddle upon it, nevertheless it will cool down on its own when it rests. And when he desires that it fall off from upon it—he loosens the rope beneath it, for in this he does not need to support it, and he leads it back and forth in the courtyard and it falls off on its own.

One may not hang a feedbag on the neck of a donkey to place its food inside so that it may eat from there, for since it can eat without this—it is a labor that is not necessary, and furthermore, perhaps he will come to lean upon it (ibid. subsection 8). However, for calves and foals, which are young donkeys whose necks are small and they suffer to eat from the ground—it is permitted to hang a small vessel upon them with the food so that they may eat from it. And there is no concern of leaning regarding them, for it is easy to hang upon them. And this is in a courtyard, but they may not go with it into the public domain, as it is a burden. And according to this, among us there are those who hang a sack with oats on the neck of a horse so that it may eat, and it is not correct, for it can eat from the manger or from another vessel.

A horse may not go out with a fox's tail that they hang between its eyes so that the evil eye shall not have power over it, nor with a crimson strap that they make for the horse's beauty, nor goats with a pouch on their udders, which they tie so that their udders will not be scratched by thorns. And I do not understand, for is this not a great necessity for them? And indeed, in the Rambam chapter 20 this law is not found, and also in the Gemara (53b) this was not mentioned regarding a prohibition; rather, they said: It happened with the goats of the house of Antiochia that their udders were large and they made pouches for them so that their udders would not be scratched, see there. And from the Rambam there is proof to the contrary, for he wrote in law 12 that males may go out with a skin tied over their hearts so that wolves will not fall upon them, and this is in the Gemara there; if so, what is the difference between this and that? And the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch section 11 who brought this law did not bring that law of the Rambam. And it seems to me that the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch hold that regarding an animal, in order to be saved from damage—it is a burden, just as with a person regarding saving from filth it is a burden if it is not a complete garment, as I wrote in siman 301 section 65, see there; therefore they ruled this as a prohibition. And they did not rule like the one who said in the Gemara there that it is permitted with a tied skin etc., and they ruled like the other Amoraim, and they hold that they disagree, while the Rambam held that they do not disagree as the Maggid Mishneh wrote there, and I wonder at the commentators who did not remark upon this at all.

And they further wrote that a cow may not go out with a muzzle on its mouth, which they use to muzzle its mouth so that it does not graze in the fields of others, nor any animal with sandals on its feet, so that it is not injured; and I did not find in the Rambam this law that a cow may not go out with a muzzle on its mouth, see there. And regarding the reason for a sandal, one can say perhaps it will fall and he will come to carry it, for if not so, why would it be forbidden? But an animal may go out with a bandage that is over a wound, and with splints that are over a fracture, and these are boards that they tie around the broken bone, and with a placenta that has partially emerged and is hanging from it; and he may plug a bell that is on its neck and it may walk about in a courtyard, but it may not go out with it to the reshuth harabbim even though it is plugged, whether it is on its neck or on its garment. And the reason is because it appears as if he is leading it to the market to sell it, and if it is not tied to it—it is also a burden (see Magen Avraham subsection 6). And if the bell is not plugged—it is forbidden even in a courtyard because of making a sound, if it is somewhat similar to the sound of a musical instrument. And even without this, since it clangs and makes a sound, even in a courtyard it appears as if he is leading it in the market to sell (ibid. subsection 5). And it may not go out with a seal, whether it is on its neck or on its garment, for the seal is for a sign and this is forbidden for an animal, as will be explained regarding the threads on a hen and as I wrote in section 5, and furthermore perhaps it will snap and he will come to carry it.

A camel may not go out with a matutelet, which is a type of small cushion placed under its tail, even if it is tied to its tail, unless it was tied to its tail and to its hump or to its afterbirth; for since it is tied to both of them, it will not fall (Rashi 54a). But if it is only on its tail, we are concerned that it might fall and he will come to carry it. And no animal may go out neither akud nor ragul. Akud means that one ties its foreleg with its hindleg, and ragul means that one ties one of its legs upward so that it walks only on three legs. And the prohibition is because, behold, why do they do this? In order that it should not flee, and it is an excessive guarding, for it does not require such guarding.

And one may not tie camels one after another while he holds the halter of the first and they are all pulled by him, because it appears as if he is leading them to sell (Gemara 54a). However, if he holds several camel halters in his hand—it is permitted. And there is one who forbids even in this case, because even in such a manner it appears as if he is leading them to sell, and it is only permitted to take out one animal alone while he pulls it by a rope. And even one who takes out one animal and pulls it by a rope—he must be careful that the end of the rope does not extend a tefach from beneath his hand, for in this it will appear as if he is carrying the rope alone, and that it is not part of the animal's halter. And also, he should not leave much of the rope between his hand and the animal in a manner that it does not weigh down until it reaches within a tefach adjacent to the ground, for if it reaches there, it also appears that the rope is on its own, and not from that which is tied to the animal. And if the rope is long—he should wind it around its neck and leave it loose between the rope and the neck, as has been written in section 5.

And a donkey may not go out with a saddlecloth when it is not tied to it from the eve of Shabbat, and the reason is explained in section 7; nor with a bell even though it is plugged, as I wrote in section 11; nor with the ladder that is on its neck, which are boards that they tie around its neck so that it does not rub its wound. And it is not similar to the bandage upon the wound that was explained there as being permitted, because these are significant and we fear perhaps the knot will come undone, and they will fall and he will come to carry them (Rashi 54b). Nor with the strap that is on its leg, which is a kind of thick ring made of straw, and they tie it on the legs of an animal whose strides are short and its legs strike one another, and they make this for it to protect it so they do not strike one another; or when its hooves are split they tie it with a strap so that it may heal and return to how it was. And the reason is either because of the concern that it will fall and he will come to carry it, or because there is no need for this and it is like a burden. And roosters may not go out with strings that they tie on their legs as a sign, for this is a burden as I wrote; nor with a strap that they tie on their legs so that they do not break vessels, for for them themselves there is no need for this and it is a burden. But if it is so that it should not flee—it is permitted, for this is its need. And rams may not go out with the wagon that is under their fat tail, which they do for them so that the fat tail will not be dragged on the ground. And the Yerushalmi explains the reason for the prohibition is because the wagon digs in the ground, see there. And goats may not go out with a known piece of wood that they place in their noses so that they will sneeze and the worms in their heads will fall out, for perhaps the wood will fall from its nose and he will come to carry it. Nor a calf with a small yoke that they place on its neck, for it is a burden; nor with a muzzle that they place on the nose of a calf so that it should not suckle, for this cannot be considered its need since this is a pain to it, and therefore it is a burden. Nor a cow with the skin that they place on its udders so that creeping things should not suckle from it, because they do not tie it strongly and we fear perhaps it will fall and he will come to carry it; nor with a strap that is between its horns, whether it is for guarding it is forbidden for the reason that it does not require such guarding and it is excessive guarding, or whether it is for ornament for there is no jewelry for an animal. And so too a cow or an ox shall not go out with a rope that is on its neck for this reason, that it does not require guarding and it is excessive guarding, unless its behavior is bad and it requires this guarding. But calves—they are permitted, because they rebel easily and require guarding. And even if the rope is wound around their neck—it is permitted when there is a space between the rope and the neck, such that he can insert his hand into it. And an animal may go out with an amulet that is expert for an animal, but it may not go out with an amulet that is expert for a person, for what is expert for a person is not expert for an animal, for a person has a guiding star (Gemara).

It is a great principle that everything the sages forbade regarding an animal due to a burden—it is permitted in a courtyard and even in a karmelit (Magen Avraham, subsection 6), though there is one who forbids it in a karmelit (Tosefet Shabbat, subsection 27), and it is similarly implied in the Semag, who wrote that a bell is forbidden in a karmelit (ibid.). But this is no proof, for regarding a bell one can say the reason is because it appears as if he is taking it to sell, and this is certainly forbidden even in a karmelit, and the Semag explicitly wrote this reason; see there. And although he wrote "and furthermore because of a burden," see there, this refers to a public domain; on the contrary, regarding other matters the Semag explicitly wrote "to a public domain," see there, and therefore the first opinion appears primary. However, in a case where the reason is lest it fall and he come to carry it—one can say that it is forbidden even in a karmelit (Magen Avraham, ibid.). And in a matter where the reason is because it appears as if he is taking it to sell—it is obvious that it is forbidden even in a merged alleyway, for behold, even on Yom Tov this is forbidden, where there is no prohibition of carrying, as written in siman 522 (ibid.).

One may not ride upon an animal nor hang from it, and even from its side it is forbidden to make use of it, for it is forbidden to make use of living creatures on Shabbat and Yom Tov, and this is among the shevutin. And know that this law that one may not ride is a Mishnah in Beitzah (37b), and the Gemara explains the reason is lest he cut a branch, and Rashi explained: to strike it, and the Rif and the Rambam in chapter 21 explained: to lead it. And why did they not say it is because of making use of living creatures? Because even the primary prohibition of making use of living creatures is for this reason, lest he cut a branch (Tosafot Eruvin 43a, end of the heading starting with 'Halacha'). And in the Yerushalmi it says the reason is because of the resting of his animal, and our teacher, the Beit Yosef, explained in his great book that even though a living being carries itself and there is no issue of the resting of his animal, nevertheless, since it suffers from this—it is forbidden, for in this there is no resting for it, see there. And according to this, it can be said that the Yerushalmi and the Bavli are one reason, according to the explanation of Rashi who explained lest he cut a branch to strike it. That is to say, there are two prohibitions: the prohibition of cutting a branch, and the prohibition of what it will suffer from the strikes. And in my humble opinion, it seems that the intent of the Yerushalmi is according to the explanation of the Rif and the Rambam, lest he cut a branch to lead it, and in this he will certainly violate the resting of his animal when he leads it with some burden. And the Yerushalmi which says because of the resting of his animal, the intent is that he could come to violate the resting of his animal (and see what I wrote above in siman 246, section 16).

It has already been explained in the previous section that even using its sides is forbidden, but the sides of sides are permitted; for example, if another object is placed on its side and one uses it, it is permitted, for they did not decree against the sides of sides. And a horse that pulls a wagon—the wagon is called "sides," for the entire action of the wagon is one, and the animal pulls the wagon, and one who sits in the wagon is literally like one who uses the sides of the animal. And even more than this, for he uses the animal by means of another object, namely by means of the wagon, and one who sits in the wagon is as if he sits on the sides of the animal itself, for what difference does it make to me if the animal pulls the person by means of a saddle or by means of the wagon. On the contrary, by means of the wagon it is more severe, for by means of the person it pulls the wagon as well, and regarding it the principle "a living being carries itself" does not apply. According to this, one who travels in a wagon is liable by Torah law, and even if the horse and the wagon belong to a non-Jew and he drives it while the Israelite sits in the wagon, it is like riding and using animals. And this is what our teacher, the Rema, wrote in section 18, and this is his wording: "And it is forbidden to sit in a wagon that a non-Jew drives on Shabbat, because he uses an animal, and also lest he cut a branch." Thus far his words. Meaning, that there is a prohibition of using the animal itself and it is called "sides," and perhaps even more than "sides" for the reason we explained. Furthermore, since the primary reason for the prohibition was lest he cut a branch, and also for one who sits in a wagon there is this concern, that because he wants it to run quickly he will cut a branch or take another object and strike it, and he will perform several prohibitions as I have written, and outside the techum there is added to this also the prohibition of techumin. The summary of the matter: one who sits in a wagon performs many prohibitions, and even to push the wagon while the horse is harnessed to it is forbidden (see Magen Avraham subsection 10, and according to what I have written everything is clarified as a prohibition, and examine this well).

The Rambam wrote in chapter 21, law 9: "One may not ride upon an animal on Shabbat… and one may not ascend while it is still day to sit upon it on Shabbat. If one ascended a tree on Shabbat inadvertently—it is permitted to descend; intentionally—it is forbidden to descend (for behold, he makes use of it during his descent), but regarding an animal—even intentionally he should descend, because of tza'ar ba'alei chayim. And so too, one may unload a burden from upon an animal on Shabbat because of tza'ar ba'alei chayim. How so? If his animal was carrying a sack of grain—he places his head beneath it and moves it to another side, and it falls on its own. If he was coming from the road on Shabbat and his animal was loaded, when he arrives at the outer courtyard he removes the vessels that may be handled on Shabbat etc.", and this has already been explained in siman 266, see there. And even if the load is muktzeh—they permitted it because of tza'ar ba'alei chayim (see Magen Avraham, subsection 9).

An animal that fell into a water channel, if the water is deep such that because of this one cannot provide it with sustenance in its place—for if one could provide it with sustenance in its place, they give it food there and it remains until the conclusion of Shabbat and they pull it out from there, but on Shabbat it is forbidden to pull it out even though there is tza'ar ba'alei chayim, for one cannot compare the decrees of the sages to one another (ibid. subsection 11). And it is simple that it is permitted to tell a non-Jew to bring it up because of tza'ar ba'alei chayim (ibid.). However, if there is no non-Jew here and it also has no sustenance in its place and it could die—the sages permitted bringing even pillows and cushions, and one lifts its leg and places the leg upon them, and likewise the second, third, and fourth leg in order to raise it, and if it ascended—it ascended. And even though one nullifies a vessel from its readiness for a time, and perhaps it will not ascend and the nullification will be for the entire Shabbat, nevertheless they permitted it because of tza'ar ba'alei chayim, but not to bring it up with one's actual hands. And further, the laws of an animal were explained in siman 266, and it will be further explained in siman 324 and in siman 332, and the laws of cooling an animal will be explained in siman 523 regarding Yom Tov, and the same law applies to Shabbat, see there (see Eliyah Rabbah subsection 18 and it requires further study).

And it is permitted to tell a non-Jew to milk his animal on Shabbat, for even though one who milks is liable on account of mefarek, and telling a non-Jew is a shevut, nevertheless, on account of tza'ar ba'alei chayim—for when an animal’s udders are full of milk and they do not milk her, she has great pain—therefore they permitted telling a non-Jew to milk her. And it is obvious that the milk is forbidden the entire Shabbat on account of muktzeh and nolad. And some say further that since the entire permission is on account of tza'ar ba'alei chayim, one must purchase it for a small amount from the non-Jew, so that it does not appear as if he is milking for the sake of the Israelite. And it is known now that they give them something in exchange for what they milk, and therefore even according to this opinion we fulfill the requirement. And some say that maidservants who are hired for the year do not need this at all (Bach and Taz, subsection 12), because they certainly act for their own sake, as it is upon them to do this. And some say that, on the contrary, maidservants are worse, for they certainly act according to the mind of the owners, as written in siman 254 (Magen Avraham, subsection 13), and furthermore, in the house of an Israelite there is no permission to do melakhah, as written in siman 252 (ibid.). And nevertheless, the world has customary practice of permission in the matter (ibid.), and it seems to me that the law is with them, for this is not similar to all other melakhot, as everyone knows that the Israelite does not use the milk on Shabbat, and no benefit reaches the Israelite from this since he would have milked her on Saturday night, and the milking is only on account of tza'ar ba'alei chayim, and this is revealed even to non-Jews. And if there is no maidservant in his house, it is good to appoint a permanent non-Jewish woman who will come to milk on Shabbat, so that they do not need to tell her every Shabbat, and such is the custom among us. And how one gives food to an animal on Shabbat—it will be explained in siman 324. (And what the Magen Avraham wrote in subsection 12 that it is permitted to tell a non-Jew to cram geese, see there, among us we practice a prohibition regarding force-feeding as written in Yoreh Deah siman 33, and what was written regarding the laws of milking will be explained in siman 320, see there.)

Our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote in section 21: Cheeses that the maidservants make on their own from the milk of an Israelite are permitted, since he does not tell them to make them. Thus far his words. That is to say, certainly if he knows they are making them, he is obligated to protest them; rather, it deals with a case where they made them on their own. The source of the law is from the Hagahot Maimoniyot, chapter 8, letter 7, and he holds that if the Israelite commanded the gentile to perform labor for him on Shabbat, the Israelite is forbidden from that labor forever by way of a penalty, according to the opinion of Rabbeinu Yerucham which he brought in his great book in siman 307. And it comes to teach us that the cheeses are permitted since they made them on their own. In truth, according to what our teacher, the Beit Yosef, ruled later in siman 307, section 20, that even if the Israelite commanded him to perform labor on Shabbat it is only forbidden for the time it takes to perform the labor, see there—this law is superfluous. Nevertheless, his intention is as I have written (and the difficulty raised by the Magen Avraham in subsection 14 is resolved well).

One who has a non-Jewish servant, and when he waters his animal and leads it to water it, he rides upon it—one does not need to protest against him, since a living being carries itself and there is no Torah prohibition in this. And even though it is prohibited by rabbinic law, they did not decree this shevut regarding an animal such that the Israelite would be obligated to prevent him; for behold, the Israelite does nothing, neither in speech nor in action, but rather he knows that the non-Jew is performing a shevut with his animal, and we have not found that in this case he must prevent him. But if he places his garments or another burden upon it, he must prevent him, as there is a Torah prohibition in this. However, regarding a saddle there is no concern, for it is nullified relative to the animal (Perishah). And if some object remained on the animal from the eve of Shabbat, the owners are obligated to prevent it so that it does not go thus on Shabbat into a public domain (Magen Avraham subsection 16 and Eliyah Rabbah subsection 23), and only when it goes outside the techum is there no need to prevent it (Eliyah Rabbah ibid.). And it is permitted to deliver a horse or a mule or a donkey to a non-Jewish shepherd, and even though he uses them on Shabbat, there is nothing to it, since he does so without the knowledge of the Israelite, and he does not expect payment from him, and if he sees him using it on Shabbat he protests against him, and automatically he will not use them, for why should he do something from which he has no profit. Therefore, when he saw him using it, it is a chance occurrence and he will not do so constantly, and therefore there is nothing to it. This is not the case for one who rents or lends to a non-Jew; even if he stipulates with him not to work on Shabbat, it is not effective, for he will certainly do so as I wrote in siman 246, but this shepherd—why would he do so since he does not benefit from it. And all the more so there is no concern that the shepherd will take them outside the techum, for techumin is a rabbinic law. And even outside of twelve mil, according to several poskim it is a rabbinic law, and even if it were a Torah law, we do not concern ourselves that he will take them so far away, but it is prohibited to tell the shepherd to take it outside the techum. And one who sends oxen to a distant place by means of non-Jews based on a fixed fee—they should send them on the eve of Shabbat, for on Shabbat it is prohibited as I wrote in siman 252 (so it appears to me, and see Magen Avraham subsection 18).