1)

(a)One may not allow one's animal to go out into the street with accessories which are not tied, because they might fall off, and we are afraid that the owner will then pick them up and carry them in the Reshus ha'Rabim.

(b)The Mishnah writes 'Ein ha'Chamor Yotzei be'Merda'as, bi'Zeman she'Einah Keshurah Lo'. Now we do not need a Mishnah to inform us that the donkey should not be allowed to go out with a loose saddle-cloth, because we already know that from the Reisha (as we just explained).What the Mishnah must therefore be coming to teach us is - that one should not allow the donkey to go out with a saddle-cloth that was not tied on already before Shabbos, (and that it is too late to tie it on now).

(c)The Tana Kama of the Beraisa forbids a donkey to go with a saddle in the street, even if it was tied before Shabbos - because a saddle is a burden.

(d)Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel permits it 'u'Vilevad she'Lo Yikshor Lo Masrichan' - meaning a sort of strap that one ties around its chest and on to the load that it is carrying, to prevent the load from sliding back towards its tail, when it climbs uphill; and 'u'Vilevad she'Lo Yifshol Lo Retzu'ah', to a strap that one ties below its tail, and to the load that it is carrying, to prevent it from slipping on to its neck, when it walks down a steep slope.Both of these are forbidden, so that people should not say that the owner intends to place a load on the donkey's back on Shabbos.

2)

(a)Rav Chiya bar Ashi rules that one may place a saddle-cloth on a donkey's back, in a courtyard, on Shabbos. When they asked him what the difference was between a saddle-cloth and a saddle with regard to placing them on the donkey's back on Shabbos - he did not answer.

(b)They translated his silence to mean - that one may even put a saddle in place on Shabbos too; to which they responded by asking from the Beraisa, which expressly forbids even the removal of a saddle on Shabbos, how much more so putting it it is place?

(c)'Leave him', said Rebbi Zeira. 'He holds like his Rebbi - Rav' (who permits placing even a food-bag - which is purely for the donkey's convenience, and is quite dispensable; how much more so a saddle, which is a necessity as far as the donkey is concerned, because a donkey is cold for twelve months of the year.

(d)One removes a saddle on Shabbos - by taking the donkey into the courtyard untying it and letting it fall by itself.

3)

(a)Shmuel permits placing a saddle-cloth on the animal's back (in the courtyard), but forbids a T'raskal. When Shmuel heard that Rav permitted placing a Teraskal around the donkey's neck on Shabbos, he exclaimed that 'if that is what Aba really said, then he knows nothing about Shabbos'!

(b)Shmuel referred to Rav as 'Aba', because he was his friend - which is one of the meanings of 'Aba' (though others say that Rav's name was AZba Aricha).

(c)Rebbi Zeira compliment Rebbi Binyamin bar Yefes - because he had quoted Rebbi Yochanan as saying that one may put a saddle-cloth on a donkey on Shabbos, but not a food-bag. Rebbi Zeira gave him a 'Yasher Ko'ach', since that is precisely what Shmuel said in Bavel.

(d)'Aryoch' refers to Shmuel, who was an expert in all money matters, and would judge with the authority of a King - 'Aryoch' is a derivative of 'Reicha', which means 'a King' (similar to the Latin word 'Rex' - See also, Mesores ha'Shas).

4)

(a)We prohibit even the removal of a saddle, despite the fact that even the placing of a saddle-cloth is permitted - because a. it is possible to let it fall off by itself, as we wrote above, and b. the purpose of removing it is for the animal to get cold, and a donkey, which is cold all the year round, does not need this incentive.

(b)Shmuel prohibits a donkey from walking even in the courtyard with a T'raskal. The Kashya on him from the Beraisa is - that, since the Tana forbids foals to go into the street with a T'raskal tied around their necks, we can infer that they may go into the courtyard. In that case, how can Shmuel forbid it?

(c)Shmuel answers this Kashya - by establishing the Beraisa by young foals, for whom a T'raskal is not only a convenience, but a necessity - since, due to their short necks and long legs, they have difficulty in bending down to eat from the ground. Consequently, a T'raskal for them is not less of a necessity than a saddle-cloth is for a donkey.

5)

(a)The purpose of hanging ...

1. ... a fox's tail between a horse's eyes is - to counteract 'Ayin ha'Ra'.

2. ... a red thread between the horse's eyes is - a form of ornament.

(b)It is forbidden to go with them into the street on Shabbos.

(c)

1. A Zav is forbidden to carry his bag into the street, as is a horse with its shoe (which is presumably detachable) and an animal wearing a proven Kemei'a ...

2. ... but a man wearing a Kemei'a which is proven, an animal wearing something which covers its wound, a splint for its broken bone or with a placenta that has partially emerged (which presumably, the owner is unlikely to pick up and carry, should it fall out), may. The latter list is more lenient than the former, since they are needed to protect the animal, and one is unlikely to come to carry them, since there is no reason to assume that they will fall off.

(d)An animal is permitted to go with a bell around its neck in the courtyard (but not in the street), provided the clapper has been removed.

6)

(a)An animal, like a person, is permitted to go out with a Kamei'a which has been proven to work for animals. When the Beraisa forbids it 'Af Al Pi she'Hu Mumcheh' - the Tana means 'Mumcheh' for a person, because a Kemei'a that has been proven for a person is not necessarily proven for an animal.

(b)We cannot explain the Beraisa to mean that even if the Kamei'a is proven for animals, it is forbidden - since we have learnt in another Beraisa that it is permitted then.

(c)Chazal have said that 'Adam Is Lei Mazla' - meaning that he has a certain protection (possibly the two angels who constantly accompany him); whereas 'Beheimah Les Lei Mazla'. Consequently, a Kamei'a which is proven for a person, is not necessarily proven for animals.

(d)When the Beraisa writes 'Zeh Chomer bi'Veheimah mi'be'Adam' - it is referring, not to the Din of Kamei'a, but to that of a shoe, with which a human may go out, but not an animal.

7)

(a)In spite of having established that, when something is for the animal's health, it is permitted, when the Beraisa says ...

1. ... 'Ein Sachin u'Mefarchesin li'Beheimah', it means that one is not permitted to anoint an animal with oil, or to rub the scabs of its wound, but the Beraisa is speaking, not before the wound has healed (in which case it would be permitted to do this - to alleviate the pain), but afterwards, and the purpose of the treatment is for the animal's pleasure.

2. ... 'Beheimah she'Achzo Dam, Ein Ma'amidin Osah be'Mayim Bishevil she'Titztanen' - that it is forbidden because it is a cure, and cures are forbidden (even with regard to animals) because of the decree of 'Shechikas Samemanim' - that one may come to grind the necessary medicines on Shabbos (a decree that applies equally, to animals' cures).

(b)Rav, who permits the animal to carry even what is for its pleasure, such as a T'raskal - has no way of explaining the Beraisa of 'Ein Sachin' etc. (which certainly forbids anointing - either (even) during the wound stage, or (specifically) after the wound has healed) to conform with his opinion in Teraskel, which he permits because of pleasure. Consequently, we are forced to resort to the answer; 'Rav Tana Hu u'Palig'.

(c)A person wo has diarrhea is permitted to stand in cold water - because it is not evident that he is doing this as a cure; he could just as well be doing it to cool down (which would be permitted). Whereas by an animal, it is evident that it is being stood in the water as a cure, and is therefore forbidden.

8)

(a)The problem with the prohibition of standing a sick animal in cold water on Shabbos, from the Beraisa, which permits the owner to call his animal from outside the T'chum Shabbos is - that if Chazal extended their decree of healing on Shabbos (due to the fear that one may come to grind medicines) even to animals and even in cases which involve a loss, then why does the Beraisa permit calling one's animal from outside the T'chum, where it has strayed? Why did they not decree there too, that the owner might leave the T'chum, to go and fetch it?

(b)We initially resolve the problem by establishing the Beraisa in a case where the animal had strayed from the T'chum of the shepherd in whose charge it was (and whose T'chum it follows), but was still within the T'chum of the owner. Consequently, the concern that the owner might leave his T'chum to fetch it is not applicable.

(c)Alternatively, whether or not, Chazal extended their fear that a person might desecrate Shabbos for the benefit of his sick animal is a Machlokes Tana'im: the Tana Kama of another Beraisa forbids running one's animal around the courtyard on Shabbos in order to loosen its bowels, because of the decree of grinding medicines. Rebbi Yashiyah permits. Consequently, Rebbi Yashiyah will be the author of the Beraisa who permits the owner to call his animal from outside the T'chum on Shabbos - even his own T'chum!

9)

(a)The Tana of the Beraisa permits a goat to go out with a bag tied over its teats - provided it is tied tightly, in which case it is unlikely to fall off (and cause the owner to come and carry it).

(b)Alternatively, the Beraisa which permits it (even when it is not tied tightly) is Rebbi Meir (the Tana Kama of our Mishnah), and the Beraisa which forbids it is Rebbi Yossi (in our Mishnah). We also suggest that the author of both Beraisos could be Rebbi Yehudah - the Beraisa which forbids it is speaking when the bag is tied there to receive the milk which drips from the teats, in which case it is a burden and is forbidden (see Tosfos, DH 'Ka'an', and Rashi at the foot of 52b, who seems to contradict himself); whereas the Beraisa which permits it, is speaking about a bag which is tied tightly (to cause the milk to dry up), where the reasons to forbid it does not apply, as we discussed in our Mishnah, earlier.

10)

(a)Rav Yosef praised that man whose wife died, and to whom a miracle occurred, when, unable to pay for a wet-nurse to feed their baby, he breast-fed him himself - to which Abaye commented that (considering that Hash-m could just as well have performed a 'natural' miracle - by providing him with the means for paying for a wet-nurse) not only was this not praiseworthy, but it is derogatory for Hash-m to change nature for a person unnecesarily (because it detracts from the reward due to him for good deeds, as we learnt above in 'Bameh Madlikin' - Agados Maharsha).

(b)Rav Yehudah commented that this episode teaches us how complex (Kevayachol) Hash-m considers providing everyone with Parnasah (as Chazal have said 'Kashah Parnasah shel Adam ki'Keri'as Yam-Suf'), seeing as he preferred to change nature for this man rather than provide him with Parnasah in a natural way. Rav Nachman added - that we can learn the same lesson from the lives of Tzadikim, for whom Hash-m often provides their needs in a miraculous way, rather than to simply arrange for food to simply appear in their storehouses.

(c)When Rebbi praised that woman, whose husband never discovered that she had a hand missing until the day she died - Rebbi Chiya commented that it was not the woman who was praiseworthy (since a. women are generally more modest than men, and b. the woman had every reason to hide her deformity), but the man, who lived all those years with his wife, without ever discovering that she had an arm missing.

11)

(a)"Libavtini Achosi Kalah" is the declaration by Hash-m that Yisrael brought Hash-m close to them by virtue of their beautiful deeds - 'Levuvin' too, has the connotation of closeness, because it refers to two rams who are tied together, to prevent them from running away.

(b)According to Ula, - 'Levuvin' (from the word 'Lev') refers to a piece of leather which they would place over the ram's heart, to protect it from attacking wolves (who tend to go for the ram's heart).

(c)According to Ula, the Tana mentions specifically rams (and not ewes), because the rams stick their noses in the air, and look from side to side, giving the wolves the impression that the rams are about to attack them. So they attack first.

(d)The reason cannot be ...

1. ... because it is the males that go at the head of the flock - because who says that the wolves attack from the front and not from the rear.

2. ... because the rams are fatter - because that is not always the case. Sometimes, the ewes are fatter than the rams.

12)

(a)Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak interprets 'Levuvin' as a piece of leather which they tied underneath the ram's male organs to prevent them from coming to the females because then it goes well with the next case 'ha'Recheilos Yotz'os Shechuzos' - which means that the ewes may go out with their tails tied on to their backs (leaving their female organs revealed), having the reverse effect of 'Levuvin'.

(b)We prove from the Pasuk "ve'Hinei Ishah Likeraso Shis Zonah u'Netzuras Lev", that 'Shechuzos' means 'revealed', since that is the meaning of the Pasuk, and the acronym of 'Shechuzos' is "Shis Zonah".