Siman 332

The sages taught in the Mishnah of Shabbat (128b): "One may not deliver the offspring of an animal on Yom Tov, but one may assist and deliver the offspring of a woman on Shabbat etc." And it seems to me that this is the explanation: that the Tanna is explaining to us the great difference between a woman and an animal, for an animal one may not deliver even on Yom Tov, and for a woman one may deliver even on Shabbat, and therefore he taught this in tractate Shabbat and not in tractate Yom Tov. And according to this, that which we learned: 'one may not deliver on Yom Tov' is as if he said: 'and all the more so on Shabbat.' And according to this, there is a doubt regarding that which he said 'one may assist,' whether this is only on Yom Tov, or perhaps since the essence of the tractate is Shabbat, and that which he said 'on Yom Tov' is to show the novelty as I have written, but in truth it is as if we learned 'on Shabbat,' and automatically that which he said 'one may assist' is also on Shabbat.

And this is the opinion of the Tur who wrote: "One may not deliver the offspring of an animal on Shabbat, but one may assist etc.," and the Rosh was in doubt regarding this in the name of the Ri, see there, and to the Tur it was simple, especially since this is a rabbinic prohibition and a doubt is ruled leniently, and especially in a case of suffering of living creatures. And our teacher, the Beit Yosef, in section 1 omitted this, as he wrote: "One may not deliver the offspring of an animal on Shabbat." Thus far his words. And there is one who says that he also forbids assisting (Magen Avraham, subsection 1), but it does not seem so, for if so, he should have explained it; rather, it is because he was in doubt, as he wrote in his great work, and he did not want to rule against the Tur, and therefore he omitted it entirely. And it seems to me that one who relies on the opinion of the Tur has not lost (and so it appears is the opinion of the Bach and Ralnach and the Taz and Tosefot Shabbat, see there, and according to what I wrote the words of the Tur are clear in their reasoning and the difficulty of the Beit Yosef is answered, and there is no need for the forced explanations of the commentators, see there and examine carefully).

How do we assist: One holds the offspring so that it does not fall to the ground, and blows into its nose and places something into its mouth so that it will suckle (Gemara), because its nostrils are blocked by mucus, and he blows into its nose so that the openings will open, and he places its mother's teat into its mouth (Rashi). And the Rambam in the Commentary on the Mishnah wrote: "We do not deliver," this is the pulling of the offspring from the womb, and "we assist," that we help the animal by releasing its legs and its awakening and its movement and the like. Thus far his words. For he holds that the Gemara did not enumerate all things, and the principle is that anything that is a support for it—is permitted. And in the Yerushalmi it says what the assistance is: He brings wine and blows into its nose and places his hand below and receives it, and draws out its teats and places them into its mouth, see there. And the Rambam did not mention this law in the laws of Shabbat. (In the Gemara it is stated: "We are compassionate toward a pure animal on Yom Tov etc.", and the Tur wrote it later in siman 523, and here he did not mention this, and there is room to doubt if this is similar to assisting. And as for that which it took "on Yom Tov," it is because the entire matter is on Yom Tov for the reason we have written, or that in this everyone agrees we do not do so on Shabbat. And in my humble opinion the exertion is all one, and there is no difference between this and that, and the Tur relied on what is later, since regarding an animal there is one law for Shabbat and Yom Tov, he did not see fit to elaborate, and delve into this.)

One may not groom the scabs of a wound for an animal on Shabbat, meaning to remove the scabs, nor may one smear the wound with oil, for all of this is only for its pleasure, and one does not exert effort on Shabbat for its pleasure. Therefore, the prohibition is only at the end of a wound, for then it is only for pleasure, but at the beginning of a wound where there is pain if they do not do it for her—it is permitted, for in order to remove its pain it is permitted to exert effort for it. Therefore, if it ate many vetches and is in pain from the excessive eating—it is permitted to run it in a courtyard, meaning that it should run and become weary and be healed, for for the sake of its pain it is permitted to exert effort. And specifically in a courtyard, but in a public place—it is forbidden, for it appears like a weekday activity. And even though this is its healing, and if so why did they not forbid it because of the grinding of herbs, because regarding an animal the grinding of herbs is not applicable (Taz, subsection 2). And so too if it was seized by a blood-related illness—one may stand it in water so that it cools down, because it has pain. And if it requires bloodletting—it is forbidden even to tell a non-Jew to let blood for it, but if there is a doubt that perhaps it will die if they do not let blood for it—they permitted telling a non-Jew to let blood for it, for since one is anxious over his property, if you do not permit it to him he will do it himself (Magen Avraham and Taz, subsection 3). Therefore, one who knows within himself that he is not so anxious as to desecrate Shabbat, it is proper for him to restrain himself from this, and the Holy One, Blessed be He, will pay him his reward.