Siman 324

Any domestic animal, wild animal, or bird whose sustenance is upon you, which you raise in your house—you are obligated to give them their sustenance and to prepare for them what they need, as will be explained. But those whose sustenance is not upon you, which you do not raise—you are not to exert yourself for them. Therefore, one does not place water or sustenance before bees, or before dovecote pigeons, or before attic pigeons, for their sustenance is not upon man; rather, they roam by themselves and gather their sustenance. Nor before a pig. But one places before geese, chickens, and domestic pigeons, and likewise a dog whose sustenance is upon you. This is the wording of our teacher, the Beit Yosef, in section 11. And the wording of the Tur is: "One gives sustenance to a dog but not to a pig," see there. (In my humble opinion, the hint is regarding the poor and the rich, as they said, of blessed memory: there is no one poorer than a dog, etc.)

And know that the Levush wrote: One provides food to a dog that he raises in his house, see there; it is explicitly clear that if the dog is not his, one should not place food before it. And there is one who wrote that from the Gemara it is implied that even if the dog is not his, it is a mitzvah to give to it, and his intention is from what they said at the end of Shabbat: "A righteous man knows the judgment of the poor," which refers to a dog, and it says there that it is the way of the world to throw a piece of raw meat to a dog, see there (Magen Avraham, subsection 7). And there are those who rejected this, for behold it says there that this is in the field, but in the city it will come to follow him (Tosefot Shabbat and Machatzit HaShekel, see there). And I say that it is also implied as such from the Tur, from what he wrote: "One places before a dog but not before a pig," and a pig certainly cannot be his, for it is forbidden to raise pigs. And it is a forced explanation to say when he inherited it; rather, it is certainly similar to this regarding a dog, that one gives even if it is not his. And there is also proof from Rashi in the first chapter (19a): "One places food before the dog in the courtyard and one places food before etc.," and Rashi explained: "A dog, it is incumbent upon him to feed it," see there, and he did not write: "A dog that is incumbent upon him," implying that every dog is incumbent upon him because it lacks food. And that which they said "not in the city," that is specifically not to habituate it constantly, but occasionally it is fine, and "His mercies are over all His works" is written, and from the Baraita itself it is implied as such to one who is precise there. (And see Tosefot there who wrote: Since we support their poor for the sake of the ways of peace, it is considered somewhat that their food is upon you, see there, and all the more so the dog when it is hungry. And in my humble opinion, any living creature that I know is hungry - it is a mitzvah to give to it even on Shabbat, for "His mercies are over all His works" is written, and see what the Ran wrote there in the name of the Ra'avad, and delve into this.)

There are those who complain about the custom on Shabbat Shirah to throw wheat before the birds, for their sustenance is not upon you (Magen Avraham ibid.). However, it seems to me that the custom of Israel is Torah, for we do not exert ourselves for them but rather for ourselves, as it is common among the masses that the birds sang song at the Sea, and therefore we show them gratitude; if so, the intention is in order to remember the joy of the song of the Sea, and there is no concern in it. And there is one who wrote that since our intention is for the sake of a mitzvah, it is permitted (Tosefet Shabbat). And it is permitted to feed silkworms, for since they have nothing to eat except what a person gives them, it is called "their sustenance is upon you" (Taz subsection 6). And so too a cat that one raises in the house, one must give it its food on Shabbat, for this is certainly "its sustenance is upon you."

And even those whose sustenance is upon you, the Rambam wrote at the end of chapter 21: "One may not feed a beast, animal, or bird on Shabbat in the manner that he feeds it on a weekday, lest he come to crush legumes or to knead flour and the like. How so: He may not feed a camel on Shabbat the food of three or four days, nor may he force a calf or the like to lie down and open its mouth and place into it bitter vetch and water at once; and likewise, he may not place into the mouths of pigeons and chickens into a place from which they cannot return it. But he may feed the beast while standing and water the beast while standing, or place into its mouth water by itself and bitter vetch by itself in a place from which it can return it, and likewise he may feed a bird by hand in a place from which it can return it, and it goes without saying that he may place it before them and they eat." Thus far his words. And so wrote the Tur and Shulchan Aruch section 9. And the reason for the prohibition was explained by the Rambam: lest he come to crushing; and there are those who wrote it is because of excessive exertion (Levush and Tosefet Shabbat), and so it is implied in Rashi (155b). And it requires further study why the Rambam did not write this reason, for from the Mishnah there it is also implied that the reason is because of exertion (for we learned there also that one may not place water before bees, etc., and examine this carefully).

It has already been explained that sifting is among the primary categories of labor, therefore one may not sift straw with a sieve, nor may one place a sieve containing straw in a high place so that the chaff will fall, because this is like sifting. However, one may take the straw in a sieve and bring it to the manger even though the chaff falls during the walking, for behold, he does not intend for this. And this is not a case of pesik reisha, for even if a little chaff falls, surely much chaff will still remain in the sieve. And a person may not measure barley to place before his animal, for measuring is forbidden on Shabbat, but rather he estimates by his own assessment. That is to say, for example, if he needs to give it a kav of barley, he should estimate approximately a kav and automatically, he will either subtract a little or add a little, and what concern is there in this, for this estimation of the measure is not measuring (see Beit Yosef and Bach, and not with a measuring vessel).

The Rambam also wrote there: "Bran, even though it is not suitable for kneading—one may not knead it, lest he come to knead soil or the like. One may place water upon the bran and move the spatula through it lengthwise and crosswise, but he may not stir it with his hand, so that it does not appear like kneading. If it does not become mixed, he may shake it from vessel to vessel until it is mixed, and place it before the chickens or before the oxen. It is permitted to mix the bran in this manner in one vessel, and divide it into many vessels and place it before each and every animal, and he may mix in one vessel even a kor or even two korin." Thus far his words. And that which he wrote that he moves the spatula lengthwise and crosswise, implies even many times. However, from the words of Rashi (156a) it is explained that it was only permitted one time lengthwise and one time crosswise; see there. And behold, the law of bran is like parched grain above in siman 321, section 19, and as has been explained there that parched grain is permitted to be kneaded a little at a time, so too with bran (Magen Avraham, subsection 1 in the name of the Ramban; see there). And that which the Rambam did not explain so, it can be said that parched grain, which is for a person, a little at a time is sufficient, but bran for an animal which requires much, it would take him a long time to do a little at a time. And know that it was only permitted for him according to what he needs today for his animals and no more, and it is obvious. And that which we permitted even a kor or two korin, this is when he has many animals.

All of this is according to the view of the Rambam, but according to the view of the Ra'avad that we wrote there, that with ash there is givul, so too with bran there is givul, and such is the opinion of the Tosafot, the Sefer HaTerumah, and the Semag. On the contrary, with these, the pouring of the water is their givul, and according to their words, it is forbidden to pour water upon bran on Shabbat; and that which they said in the Gemara, "he moves it back and forth," this is when the water was poured upon it while it was still day. And the Rosh decided according to the view of the Rambam, as the Tur wrote in his name, see there, and it seems that such is the custom of the world, that they pour water into the bran and move it here and there. However, it is certainly proper for one who fears G-d to be careful in this, since according to the view of these, our teachers, there is a primary category of labor in this, and in any case, they should be careful to do it by means of a non-Jew.

We hold: We may make it food, but we do not exert effort for food (155a, like Rabbi Yehuda). The explanation of these matters: There are types of animal food that if one gives them to it as they are, it will not be able to eat them, such as stalks of grain tied in two or three places, and it is necessary to untie the knots so that it can eat them, and this is called making it food, for if not so, it would not be able to eat them. But there are those that it can eat, but if we add some effort it will eat them better, such as rubbing the stalks well with the hands. And this is forbidden to do on Shabbat, for since it is fit for eating, we do not exert effort for it to repair it and prepare it further. And that which we permitted to untie the knots is because regarding this a permanent knot does not apply, as they are meant to be untied every day. Nevertheless, some say that it is only permitted to untie if it is not a permanent knot, such as by a slipknot or the like. But tied with two knots one on top of the other—it is forbidden to untie them on Shabbat, for even in this a permanent knot applies, as perhaps his intention was that they remain so for a long time.

And similarly, wood that was cut from a tree, and there are those who feed them to an animal while they are still moist—one may untie and rub them to feed them. And in this case, rubbing was also permitted, for without this they are not fit for eating, and it constitutes the preparation of food and is permitted. And similarly, one may cut gourds before an animal, for without cutting it would not be able to eat, and this is regarding hard gourds (Magen Avraham, subsection 3), for with soft ones it would be able to eat them as they are. And specifically if they were detached from yesterday, for if not so, it would be muktzeh like dried figs and raisins, for even Rabbi Shimon admits in this case since they were attached during twilight, and it is similar to a manual rejection as was explained in siman 308, for in this case it is muktzeh even according to Rabbi Shimon.

And one may cut up a carcass before dogs when they are unable to eat without cutting. And regarding a carcass, even if it became a carcass today—it is permitted, for we hold like Rabbi Shimon who does not subscribe to the law of muktzeh. And it is not only necessary to say if it was sick while it was yet day, for his mind was upon it that it would die and he would give it before the dogs, but even if it was healthy while it was yet day—it is permitted according to Rabbi Shimon, for this is not like pushing it away with his hands. And specifically with a tough carcass that is impossible for them without cutting, and even if it is edible through difficulty—it is permitted to cut them. But if it was suitable for them easily even without cutting, only that through cutting it is better for them—it is forbidden to cut them, for we do not exert effort on food for that which is already suitable. And above in siman 321, section 14, it was explained regarding the matter of cutting very finely before birds. (See Turei Zahav, subsection 4, who wondered at the words of our teacher, the Rema, there, and the law is with him as I wrote there. And from the Magen Avraham, subsection 5, it is implied because of grinding, see there, yet our teacher, the Rema, wrote there because of preparing food, see there.)

One may not cut vegetables before an animal, whether small or large, and similarly carobs, because even without this they are fit for eating. And it has already been explained that it is permitted to place food in the mouths of roosters, and it is permitted to crumble bread for them so that they may be able to eat, and there is no concern of grinding in this, for there is no grinding after grinding, as I wrote in siman 321.

A person may stand his animal upon attached grass so that it may eat, and we are not concerned that he might come to pluck it himself and feed it. And regarding that which the animal is permitted to eat from that which is attached, we have explained in siman 305; see there. And why are we not concerned that he will pluck it himself and feed it? Because since it is a prohibition of a primary labor, he will not come to stumble in this. Therefore, upon grass that is muktzeh which was plucked today—it is forbidden for him to stand it, for we are concerned that he will take it with his hands and feed it, since it is a light prohibition. And specifically to stand directly over it is forbidden regarding muktzeh, but it is permitted for him to stand before it so that it cannot turn except in that direction, meaning that he stands somewhat far from the place of its eating, for in such a case we are not concerned that he will take it with his hands and feed it, since he is not standing directly over it.

One may take food from before a donkey and place it before an ox, for the ox eats from the leftovers of a donkey. However, one may not take from before an ox to place it before a donkey, because the donkey does not eat from the leftovers of an ox, because when the ox eats it drips saliva and the food becomes loathsome due to the saliva, and the donkey will not eat them and it is a handling of that which is not fit and is forbidden on Shabbat. And even though the donkey would eat in a time of pressing need, nevertheless, this is not considered eating. And there are those who are stringent also regarding other types of animals to take from before one and place before another that is not of its species, because for the most part they will not eat from one another. Therefore, if he knows that it will eat them—it is permitted. And it is forbidden to scrape the manger before an ox that they are fattening, and it is the way to scrape the manger for it on a weekday, but on Shabbat—it is forbidden even a manger that is a vessel, because we decree on account of a manger of the ground, for there is a concern of leveling pits, for which one is liable on account of building. And it is also forbidden to remove the straw from before it to the sides, because the straw has become loathsome and is not fit for eating and it is muktzeh, and is forbidden to be handled. And nowadays we scrape the manger of the horse, for the scraping is minimal and is not similar to a fattened ox, and furthermore, among us there is no manger of the ground, and therefore we do not decree on account of the ground (and as the Tosafot wrote, Shabbat 29b, s.v. "gezeirah").