Mishneh Torah — Sabbath (Shabbat) הלכות שבת, Chapter 20

אָסוּר לְהוֹצִיא מַשָּׂא עַל הַבְּהֵמָה בְּשַׁבָּת שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (שמות כג יב) "לְמַעַן יָנוּחַ שׁוֹרְךָ וַחֲמֹרֶךָ" וְכָל בְּהֶמְתֶּךָ. אֶחָד שׁוֹר וַחֲמוֹר וְאֶחָד כָּל בְּהֵמָה חַיָּה וָעוֹף. וְאִם הוֹצִיא עַל הַבְּהֵמָה אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהוּא מְצֻוֶּה עַל שְׁבִיתָתָהּ אֵינוֹ לוֹקֶה לְפִי שֶׁאִסּוּרוֹ בָּא מִכְּלַל עֲשֵׂה. לְפִיכָךְ הַמְחַמֵּר אַחַר בְּהֶמְתּוֹ בְּשַׁבָּת וְהָיָה עָלֶיהָ מַשּׂאוֹי פָּטוּר:

It is forbidden to transfer a burden on an animal on the Sabbath, as [Exodus 23:12] states, "[On the seventh day, you shall cease activity,] and thus your ox and your donkey may rest." include several words that are not included in the original verse. This includes [not only] an ox and a donkey, but all animals, beasts, and fowl. 54b explains that although the verse mentions only an ox and a donkey, the obligation to rest refers to all animals. "The Torah referred to common circumstances" - i.e., since these animals are generally those used for work, they were the ones mentioned specifically.Although a person is commanded to have [his animals] rest, he is not liable [for causing them to work], for the prohibition is derived from a positive commandment. Therefore, a person who directs his animal [while] it is carrying a burden on the Sabbath is not liable.

וַהֲלֹא לָאו מְפֹרָשׁ בַּתּוֹרָה שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (שמות כ י) "לֹא תַעֲשֶׂה כָל מְלָאכָה אַתָּה וּבִנְךָ וּבִתֶּךָ וְעַבְדְּךָ וַאֲמָתֶךָ וּבְהֶמְתֶּךָ", שֶׁלֹּא יַחֲרשׁ בָּהּ וְכַיּוֹצֵא בַּחֲרִישָׁה. וְנִמְצָא לָאו שֶׁנִּתָּן לְאַזְהָרַת מִיתַת בֵּית דִּין וְאֵין לוֹקִין עָלָיו:

Behold, there is [also] an explicit prohibition in the Torah [against working with an animal] as [Exodus 20:10] states: "Do not do any work on the Sabbath. [This includes] you, your son, your daughter, your servant, your maidservant and your beast."[This means that one should not perform forbidden labors such as] plowing and the like [together with an animal]. Since this is a prohibition which is punishable by death, [its violation does not incur] lashes. 13b and which the Rambam quotes in Hilchot Sanhedrin 18:2) generally means that if a person transgresses a prohibition punishable by death, but for certain reasons that punishment cannot be administered, he should not be lashed instead. The rationale is that the only punishment which the Torah prescribed for this transgression is execution. There is no source in the Torah which prescribes a lesser punishment.Nevertheless, within the context of this principle is also the concept that if a certain dimension of a prohibition involves capital punishment, the punishment of lashes is not given to a person who violates another act that is included in this prohibition, but is not punishable by death.To apply these concepts to the case at hand: Working with an animal is the subject of a Torah prohibition. When a person works with an animal, however, he is not punished by lashes as are others who violate Torah prohibitions. Why? Because there are certain instances when working with an animal is punishable by death - i.e., when the activity is performed by a man and the animal together - for example, plowing. Therefore, even when the labor a person has the animal perform does not cause that person to incur the death sentence - for example, leading it while it is carrying a burden - he is not punished by lashes.This is the interpretation of the Maggid Mishneh. The Ramban (in his gloss on Sefer HaMitzvot, General Principle 14), however, interprets the Rambam's words to mean that the Torah's prohibition against working with an animal applies only to activities like plowing when the activity is performed by the man and the beast together. The only prohibition stemming from the Torah against having an animal carry a burden is the prohibition derived from the positive commandment mentioned in Halachah 1. Both these interpretations and their implications are discussed at length by the later commentaries.

אָסוּר לְיִשְׂרָאֵל לְהַשְׁאִיל אוֹ לְהַשְׂכִּיר בְּהֵמָה גַּסָּה לְנָכְרִי שֶׁלֹּא יַעֲשֶׂה בָּהּ מְלָאכָה בְּשַׁבָּת וַהֲרֵי הוּא מְצֻוֶּה עַל שְׁבִיתַת בְּהֶמְתּוֹ. אָסְרוּ חֲכָמִים לִמְכֹּר בְּהֵמָה גַּסָּה לְנָכְרִי שֶׁמָּא יַשְׁאִיל אוֹ יַשְׂכִּיר. וְאִם מָכַר קוֹנְסִין אוֹתוֹ עַד עֲשָׂרָה בְּדָמֶיהָ וּמַחֲזִירָהּ. וַאֲפִלּוּ שְׁבוּרָה אֵין מוֹכְרִין. וּמֻתָּר לוֹ לִמְכֹּר לָהֶם עַל יְדֵי סַרְסוּר שֶׁהַסַּרְסוּר אֵינוֹ מַשְׂכִּיר וְאֵינוֹ מַשְׁאִיל:

It is forbidden for a Jew to lend or hire a large animal to a gentile so that the latter may perform work with it on the Sabbath, since [the Jew] is commanded to have his animal rest.Our Sages forbade selling a large animal to a gentile, 4:3), the Rambam emphasizes that there is no difference in this instance whether the gentile is an idolater or not.Based on the rulings of the Tur, the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 151:4) states that it is customary not to enforce this prohibition in the present age. The Siftei Cohen 151:12 states that the socio-economic conditions under which our people live have changed, and substantial losses would be sustained if the prohibition were observed. Furthermore, the reason for the prohibition is no longer applicable, for it is uncommon for a Jew to lend or hire his animals to a gentile. lest one come to lend or hire [an animal to work on the Sabbath]. and others note that Avodah Zarah 15a mentions another reason for this prohibition: A Jew who sells an animal to a gentile on Friday afternoon may be required to assist him in training it to follow its new master. This activity may be prolonged past the commencement of the Sabbath. Nevertheless, since this is an infrequent possibility, and the Jew is not performing this task entirely by himself, the Rambam does not mention this matter here. (Significantly, however, he does mention it in his Commentary to the Mishnah, Pesachim, loc. cit.) A person who makes such a sale is penalized and is required to repurchase the animal, even if this requires paying ten times its worth. 8:1. Significantly, in that halachah, the Rambam states that if the gentile demands a price greater than this figure, the Jew has no further obligation.Even an animal that is injured). should not be sold [to a gentile]. It is, however, permitted to sell [an animal to a gentile] through a broker,), the Rambam emphasizes that the Jewish owner must not be present while the broker is making the sale. since a broker neither lends nor hires [beasts].

וּמֻתָּר לִמְכֹּר לָהֶם סוּס שֶׁאֵין הַסּוּס עוֹמֵד אֶלָּא לִרְכִיבַת אָדָם לֹא לְמַשּׂאוֹי וְהַחַי נוֹשֵׂא אֶת עַצְמוֹ. וּכְדֶרֶךְ שֶׁאָסְרוּ לִמְכֹּר לְנָכְרִי כָּךְ אָסְרוּ לִמְכֹּר לְיִשְׂרָאֵל הֶחָשׁוּד לִמְכֹּר לְנָכְרִי. וּמֻתָּר לִמְכֹּר לָהֶם פָּרָה לִשְׁחִיטָה וְשׁוֹחֵט אוֹתָהּ בְּפָנָיו. וְלֹא יִמְכֹּר סְתָם אֲפִלּוּ שׁוֹר שֶׁל פְּטָם שֶׁמָּא יַשְׁהֵא אוֹתוֹ וְיַעֲבֹד בּוֹ:

It is permitted to sell a gentile a horse, since a horse is used only for human transportation 4:3). The Rambam interprets that Mishnah to be referring to a specific type of horse that is used for transporting birds and not humans. Nevertheless, even according to the Commentary on the Mishnah, ordinary horses are primarily used for human transport. and not for transporting burdens. (Yoreh De'ah 151), which states that even though it is now customary to perform other tasks with horses, since our Sages did not apply the prohibition to them originally, the scope of their decree need not be extended in the present age. See the notes on the previous halachah. [Hence, there is no forbidden labor involved, because] "a living entity carries itself."Just as it is forbidden to sell [such an animal] to a gentile, so too is it forbidden to sell it to a Jew who, we suspect, might sell it to a gentile. 9:8.One may, however, sell [a gentile] a cow for the purpose of slaughter, [provided] he slaughters it in the seller's presence. One should not, however, sell [any animal], even an ox fattened for slaughter, without an explicit condition, lest the purchaser delay and work with it [on the Sabbath in the interim]. and others question if this prohibition applies when one sells an animal to a gentile butcher as well. Even if the butcher does not slaughter the animal in one's presence, it is clear that he did not purchase it for the sake of labor.

מָקוֹם שֶׁנָּהֲגוּ לִמְכֹּר לָהֶן בְּהֵמָה דַּקָּה מוֹכְרִין. מָקוֹם שֶׁנָּהֲגוּ שֶׁלֹּא לִמְכֹּר אֵין מוֹכְרִין. וּבְכָל מָקוֹם אֵין מוֹכְרִין לָהֶם חַיָּה גַּסָּה כְּמוֹ שֶׁאֵין מוֹכְרִין לָהֶם בְּהֵמָה גַּסָּה אֶלָּא עַל יְדֵי סַרְסוּר:

In a place where the accepted custom is to sell a small animal to gentiles, one may make such a sale. In a place where the accepted custom is not to make such sales, one should not. (based on Rashi, Avodah Zarah 14b) explains that the reason for the prohibition is our suspicion that the gentile may sodomize the animal, and there is no relation to the Sabbath prohibitions at all.Work is generally not performed with a small animal, nor would it be proper to forbid the sale of a small animal lest one sell a large animal. The sale of a large animal is only a Rabbinic prohibition. Accordingly, instituting another prohibition because of it would be improper, since the Rabbis did not "institute a safeguard for a safeguard."Note, however, the Sefer HaKovetz, which differs and maintains that the prohibition against selling a small animal is a safeguard for the prohibition against selling a larger one. Were this not so, the Rambam would not have mentioned the prohibition against selling a small animal in these halachot.In all places, however, a large non-domesticated animal should not be sold [to a gentile], just as a large domesticated animal should not be sold unless one does so via a broker.

מִי שֶׁהֶחְשִׁיךְ בַּדֶּרֶךְ וְלֹא הָיָה עִמּוֹ נָכְרִי שֶׁיִּתֵּן לוֹ כִּיסוֹ וְהָיְתָה עִמּוֹ בְּהֵמָה. מַנִּיחַ כִּיסוֹ עָלֶיהָ כְּשֶׁהִיא מְהַלֶּכֶת וּכְשֶׁתִּרְצֶה לַעֲמֹד נוֹטְלוֹ מֵעָלֶיהָ כְּדֵי שֶׁלֹּא תַּעֲמֹד וְהוּא עָלֶיהָ וּכְדֵי שֶׁלֹּא תִּהְיֶה שָׁם לֹא עֲקִירָה וְלֹא הַנָּחָה. וְאָסוּר לוֹ לְהַנְהִיגָהּ וַאֲפִלּוּ בְּקוֹל כָּל זְמַן שֶׁהַכִּיס עָלֶיהָ כְּדֵי שֶׁלֹּא יִהְיֶה מְחַמֵּר בְּשַׁבָּת. וּגְזֵרַת חֲכָמִים הִיא שֶׁלֹּא יַנִּיחַ כִּיסוֹ עַל גַּבֵּי בְּהֵמָה אֶלָּא אִם אֵין עִמּוֹ נָכְרִי:

[The following rules apply when] a person is on a journey and night falls on Friday, [but] he is not accompanied by a gentile to whom he could give his purse: 24:1.) If he has an animal with him, 266:4, which states that this ruling applies only when the animal belongs to him, for the verse mentioned at the beginning of the chapter states "and thus your ox and your donkey may rest." When the animal belongs to another individual, it is preferable to have the animal carry the purse. Although we are forbidden to perform a forbidden labor with an animal (Halachah 2), that prohibition can be avoided by making sure the animal does not perform the akirah or the hanachah. There is also a Rabbinic prohibition against working with an animal that belongs to another person. That prohibition is, however, less severe than the prohibition against asking a gentile to perform labor on one's behalf. he should place his purse on [the animal] while it is walking, and when [the animal] desires to stand, he should remove [the purse] from it, so that it will not stand still while carrying [the purse]. [In this manner,] neither the removal of an article from its place, nor placing it down in a new position will have been performed [by the animal]. 266:7 explains that the prohibition against working with an animal also mentions the term melachah. Accordingly, it is the same activities that a man is prohibited from performing on the Sabbath that are forbidden to be done with an animal.As mentioned previously, the forbidden labor of transferring involves akirah, removing the article from its previous position, and hanachah, placing the article down in a new position. When a person - or an animal - who is carrying an article begins walking, he is considered to have performed an akirah, and when he stops he is considered to have performed a hanachah. (See Chapter 13, Halachah 8.)Accordingly, were a person to place a burden on an animal while it is at rest and remove it from him after the animal has come to rest again, he would be considered as having performed labor with the animal, for the animal will have performed both the akirah and the hanachah.If, however, one follows the course of action suggested by the Rambam, the animal will have performed neither of these acts. Since the article was placed upon the animal after it began to walk, it is not considered to have performed the akirah. Similarly, if the article was removed from the animal before it halted, it is not considered to have performed the hanachah.It is forbidden for him to direct the animal, even with his voice alone, as long as the purse is on it, so that he will not be considered to be directing his animal on the Sabbath. and the hanachah (as explained above), what difference does it make whether one leads the animal or not? There is no possibility of the animal's performing a forbidden labor.The Rambam, however, maintains that leading an animal carrying a burden is also forbidden. Otherwise, the license granted a person would be too extensive (Maggid Mishneh). Our Sages decreed 17b. that one should not place a purse on an animal on the Sabbath unless one is not accompanied by a gentile. 266:3 and the Mishnah Berurah 266:6, which state that the above rules also apply when a person is accompanied by a gentile whom he does not trust.)

הָיָה עִמּוֹ חֵרֵשׁ שׁוֹטֶה וְקָטָן מַנִּיחַ כִּיסוֹ עַל הַחֲמוֹר וְאֵינוֹ נוֹתְנוֹ לְאֶחָד מֵהֶן מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהֵן אָדָם מִיִּשְׂרָאֵל. הָיָה עִמּוֹ חֵרֵשׁ וְשׁוֹטֶה וְאֵין עִמּוֹ בְּהֵמָה נוֹתְנוֹ לְשׁוֹטֶה. שׁוֹטֶה וְקָטָן נוֹתְנוֹ לְשׁוֹטֶה. חֵרֵשׁ וְקָטָן נוֹתְנוֹ לְאֵי זֶה מֵהֶן שֶׁיִּרְצֶה. לֹא הָיְתָה עִמּוֹ בְּהֵמָה וְלֹא נָכְרִי וְלֹא אֶחָד מִכָּל אֵלּוּ מְהַלֵּךְ בּוֹ פָּחוֹת פָּחוֹת מֵאַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת. וַאֲפִלּוּ מְצִיאָה שֶׁבָּאָה לְיָדוֹ מְהַלֵּךְ בָּהּ פָּחוֹת פָּחוֹת מֵאַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת. אֲבָל קֹדֶם שֶׁתָּבוֹא לְיָדוֹ אִם יָכוֹל לְהַחְשִׁיךְ עָלֶיהָ מַחְשִׁיךְ וְאִם לָאו מוֹלִיכָהּ פָּחוֹת פָּחוֹת מֵאַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת:

Although the person is also accompanied by a deaf mute, a mentally incompetent individual, and a minor, he should place his purse on the donkey rather than give to one of these individuals, for they are humans and are members of the Jewish people. 153a) adds that if one of these individuals were allowed to carry the purse, one might err and think that an ordinary Jew is also allowed to carry.If he is accompanied by a deaf-mute and a mentally incompetent individual, and does not have an animal with him, he should give it to the mentally incompetent individual.). If [he is accompanied by] a mentally incompetent individual and a minor, he should give it nor the hanachah. They maintain that although a mentally incompetent individual (and similarly, the others mentioned) are not obligated to observe the mitzvot, it is forbidden to "feed him non-kosher food with one's hands." (See Hilchot Ma'achalot Asurot 17:27.) Similarly, in this instance it is forbidden to give these individuals an article and tell them to carry it. See also Chapter 24, Halachah 11, and notes.This opinion is quoted by the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 266:6) and accepted by the later authorities. There is a difference of opinion among the Rabbis whether the above law applies if one gives the article to one of these individuals before the commencement of the Sabbath. On the one hand, it is obvious that one's intent is to have the individual carry the article on the Sabbath. Nevertheless, since one gives the article to him before the commencement of the Sabbath, one is not considered to be "feeding him non-kosher food with one's hands." (See the glosses of the Ramah and the Magen Avraham on that law.) to the mentally incompetent individual. If [he is accompanied by] a deaf-mute and a minor, he may give it to whomever he desires. 153b explains that on the one hand, it is preferable to give it to the child, because when the deaf-mute carries, the impression will be created that an adult may carry on the Sabbath. Conversely, however, there is a disadvantage in giving it to the child, for he will ultimately mature and become obligated to observe the mitzvot.The Be'ur Halachah 266 emphasizes that when the minor is one's own son, it is definitely preferable to give the purse to the deaf-mute, for a person is obligated to train his children in the observance of the mitzvot.If he does not have an animal with him, nor is he accompanied by one of these individuals, he should walk [carrying his purse] less than four cubits [at a time]. 266:12; Mishnah Berurah 266:17).Significantly, in contrast to Chapter 13, Halachah 9, the Rambam does not say that the person should run without stopping until he arrives home. It is possible to differentiate between the two instances by explaining that the present halachah refers to an instance when the person had stopped after the commencement of the Sabbath, while the halachah cited refers to an instance when the person had continued walking. Even if he has acquired a lost article, he may [move it] by walking less than four cubits [at a time].[Different rules, however, apply to a lost article that] he has not acquired: If he can linger and wait until nightfall, he should. If not, he may [carry it] by walking less than four cubits [at a time]. (Orach Chayim 266:7).

מֻתָּר לִמְשֹׁךְ אֶת הַבְּהֵמָה בְּמֶתֶג וָרֶסֶן שֶׁלָּהּ לִרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים וְהוּא שֶׁתִּהְיֶה רְאוּיָה לְאוֹתוֹ הָרֶסֶן. כְּגוֹן שִׁיר לְסוּס וְאַפְסָר לְגָמָל וַחֲטָם לְנָאקָה וְסוּגַר לְכֶלֶב. אֲבָל אִם הוֹצִיא בְּהֵמָה בְּמֶתֶג שֶׁאֵין מִשְׁתַּמֶּרֶת בּוֹ כְּגוֹן שֶׁקָּשַׁר חֶבֶל בְּפִי הַסּוּס אוֹ בְּמֶתֶג שֶׁאֵינָהּ צְרִיכָה לוֹ אֶלָּא מִשְׁתַּמֶּרֶת בְּפָחוֹת מִמֶּנּוּ. כְּגוֹן שֶׁהוֹצִיא חֲמוֹר בְּשִׁיר שֶׁל סוּס אוֹ חָתוּל בְּסוּגַר הֲרֵי זֶה מַשּׂאוֹי. שֶׁכָּל שְׁמִירָה מְעֻלָּה אוֹ שְׁמִירָה פְּחוּתָה מַשּׂאוֹי הוּא לָהּ:

It is permitted to lead an animal in the public domain with its reins and its bridle,, because the person had the intent of using them before the Sabbath. One must, however, be careful not to lean on the animal when putting the bridle and the reins on it, for it is forbidden to make use of a live animal (Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 305:1 and commentaries). provided the bridle and reins are appropriate for it - for example, a horse with a neck-ring, a camel with a rope tied to its mouth, a female camel with an iron bit, 5:1), the Rambam writes that female camels are more powerful than males and need stronger restraints. The rope used to tie a male camel is, however, apparently different from that mentioned later in the halachah in regard to a horse. and a dog with a muzzle.If, however, one took out an animal with a bridle that is insufficient - e.g., one tied a rope in the mouth of a horse - or with a bridle that is excessive, for it would be controlled with a lesser one, - for example one took out a donkey with a horse's neck-ring, or a cat with a muzzle, it is considered to be a burden. For any excessive or insufficient restraint is considered to be a burden. (loc. cit.) mentions "a very excessive restraint" - i.e., we are not expected to measure exactly the strength of the animal and the restraint. As long as the restraint is more or less appropriate for the animal, it is not considered to be a burden.

לֹא יִקְשֹׁר גְּמַלִּים זֶה בָּזֶה וְיִמְשֹׁךְ אֲפִלּוּ הָיוּ קְשׁוּרִין מֵעֶרֶב שַׁבָּת אֵינָן נִמְשָׁכִין בְּשַׁבָּת. אֲבָל מַכְנִיס הוּא חֲבָלִים לְתוֹךְ יָדוֹ וְהוּא שֶׁלֹּא יֵצֵא חֶבֶל מִתּוֹךְ יָדוֹ טֶפַח. וְצָרִיךְ שֶׁיִּהְיֶה הַחֶבֶל שֶׁמִּפִּי הַבְּהֵמָה עַד יָדוֹ גָּבוֹהַּ מִן הָאָרֶץ טֶפַח אוֹ יוֹתֵר. וּמִפְּנֵי מָה לֹא יִמְשֹׁךְ הַגְּמַלִּים הַקְּשׁוּרִים זֶה בָּזֶה מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא נִרְאֶה כְּמִי שֶׁמּוֹלִיכָן לְשׁוּק שֶׁמּוֹכְרִין בּוֹ הַבְּהֵמוֹת אוֹ שֶׁמְּשַׂחֲקִין בָּהֶן שָׁם. וּמִפְּנֵי זֶה לֹא תֵּצֵא בְּהֵמָה בְּזוֹג שֶׁבְּצַוָּארָהּ וַאֲפִלּוּ הָיָה פָּקוּק שֶׁאֵין לוֹ קוֹל:

A person should not tie camels together and lead them. [Moreover,] even when they were tied together on Friday, he should not lead them on the Sabbath. One may, however, gather the ropes [of many camels] in one's hand, (Orach Chayim 305) appears to differ and to allow one to lead merely one camel at a time. provided none of the ropes extends more than a handbreadth outside one's hand 5:3). and the rope leading from [each] camel's mouth to one's hand is at least a handbreadth above the earth. 54b).Why is one prohibited from leading camels that are tied to each other? Because it appears as if he is leading them to the marketplace where animals are sold or used for sport. 54a states that a person leading a group of camels appears as if he is going to a חנגא. The Rambam, based on the commentary of Rabbenu Chanan'el, interprets that term as having both the meanings mentioned above. It appears to refer to a country-fair that was an occasion for both commerce and celebration for the populace at large. For this reason, a person should not go out [leading] an animal wearing a bell around its neck, even if its clapper is plugged [so that] it does not produce a sound. 54b). Alternatively, a bell's sound will invite the attention of prospective customers. An onlooker may not realize that the bell has been plugged (Tiferet Yisrael, Shabbat 5:4).

לֹא תֵּצֵא בְּהֵמָה בְּזוּג שֶׁבִּכְסוּתָהּ וְלֹא בְּחוֹתָם שֶׁבְּצַוָּארָהּ וְלֹא בְּחוֹתָם שֶׁבִּכְסוּתָהּ וְלֹא בִּרְצוּעָה שֶׁבְּרַגְלָהּ וְלֹא בְּסֻלָּם שֶׁבְּצַוָּארָהּ. וְאֵין חֲמוֹר יוֹצֵא בְּמַרְדַּעַת אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן הָיְתָה קְשׁוּרָה לוֹ מֵעֶרֶב שַׁבָּת. וְלֹא יֵצֵא גָּמָל בַּמְּטוּטֶלֶת הַתְּלוּיָה לוֹ בְּדַבַּשְׁתּוֹ אוֹ בִּזְנָבוֹ אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן הָיְתָה קְשׁוּרָה בִּזְנָבוֹ וְחוֹטַרְתּוֹ. וְלֹא יֵצֵא הַגָּמָל עֲקוּד יָד וְלֹא עֲקוּד רֶגֶל וְכֵן שְׁאָר כָּל הַבְּהֵמוֹת:

An animal should not go out with a bell [attached to] its coverings, (Shabbat 58a) states that the reason stated in the previous halachah - that one appears to be taking them to a fair - applies in this instance as well. a seal [attached to] its neck, a seal [attached to] its coverings, 305:15; Mishnah Berurah 305:45).From the context here, it would appear that the reason for the prohibition is that the seal is considered to be an unnecessary burden. Note, however, Shulchan Aruch HaRav (loc. cit.), which states that the prohibition was instituted lest the seal fall and the owner pick it up and carry it. a strap on its foot, 5:4, based on Shabbat 54b), the Rambam interprets this as referring to a leather strap tied around the hoof of an animal that has been wounded. or a ladder on its neck.).A donkey may not go out with a saddle-cloth unless it is tied to it on Friday. 53a states that a donkey is always cold, and hence, a saddle-cloth is necessary, even in the summer, to keep it warm. Accordingly, the saddle-cloth is considered to be a garment and not a burden.The saddlecloth must be tied to the animal, lest it fall and its owner carry it on the Sabbath. It must be tied before the Sabbath, because there is no way that it can be tied on the Sabbath itself without leaning on the animal, which is a forbidden act. Our Sages prohibited a person who violated their decree and tied the saddle-cloth on the Sabbath from taking out his donkey on that day (Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah, Shabbat 5:2).Other commentaries explain that if the saddle-cloth was not tied to the animal on Friday, we can assume that it does not suffer from cold so seriously. Hence, it is forbidden for it to wear the saddle-cloth on the Sabbath. A camel should not go out with a patch attached to its hump or its tail:3), the Rambam states that the patch is used as a sign of identification or for superstitious reasons. Note Rashi (Shabbat 54a), who translates מטוטלת as a "small cushion" rather than as a patch. unless it is tied to both its hump and its tail.A camel should not go out with its foreleg tied to its hind leg).or its foreleg bound.). In both these instances, the animal is able to walk, but cannot walk fast. The same applies to all other animals.

אֵין הַתַּרְנְגוֹלִים יוֹצְאִין בְּחוּטִין וְלֹא בָּרְצוּעוֹת שֶׁבְּרַגְלֵיהֶם. וְאֵין הַכְּבָשִׂין יוֹצְאִין בָּעֲגָלָה שֶׁתַּחַת אַלְיָה שֶׁלָּהֶן. וְאֵין הַכְּבָשׂוֹת יוֹצְאוֹת בָּעֵצִים שֶׁמַּנִּיחִים לָהֶן בְּחָטְמָן כְּדֵי שֶׁיִּתְעַטְּשׁוּ וְיִפְּלוּ הַתּוֹלָעִין שֶׁבְּמֹחָן. וְאֵין הָעֵגֶל יוֹצֵא בְּעל קָטָן שֶׁמַּנִּיחִין לוֹ עַל צַוָּארוֹ כְּדֵי שֶׁיִּכָּנַע וְיִהְיֶה נוֹחַ לַחֲרִישָׁה. וְלֹא תֵּצֵא בְּהֵמָה בִּשְׂבָכָה שֶׁמַּנִּיחִין לָהּ בְּפִיהָ כְּדֵי שֶׁלֹּא תִּשֹּׁךְ אוֹ שֶׁלֹּא תֹּאכַל. לֹא תֵּצֵא הַפָּרָה בְּעוֹר הַקּוּפָּר שֶׁמַּנִּיחִין לָהּ עַל דַּדֶּיהָ כְּדֵי שֶׁלֹּא יִינַק מִמֶּנָּה הַשֶּׁרֶץ כְּשֶׁהִיא יְשֵׁנָה. וְלֹא תֵּצֵא בָּרְצוּעָה שֶׁבֵּין קַרְנֶיהָ בֵּין לְנוֹי בֵּין לְשַׁמֵּר. עֵז שֶׁחָקַק לָהּ בְּקַרְנֶיהָ יוֹצְאָה בְּאַפְסָר הַקָּשׁוּר בְּחֶקֶק בְּשַׁבָּת. וְאִם תְּחָבוֹ בִּזְקָנָהּ אָסוּר שֶׁמָּא תְּנַתְּחֶנּוּ וִיבִיאֶנּוּ בְּיָדוֹ בִּרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים. וְכֵן כָּל כַּיּוֹצֵא בָּזֶה:

Chickens 5:4), the Rambam emphasizes that this applies to both male and female chickens. may not go out with cords,, based on Shabbat 54b). nor with straps on their feet.) interprets this as referring to straps that hang loosely from a chicken's feet. He does not explain their purpose. Others (based on Shabbat 54b) explain that these straps served as a restraint. Rams may not go out with a small wagon under their fat tail.) explains that this refers to a unique species of rams. When they are fattened, all the fat collects in the fat tail, which swells in size. Because of its size, the ram is unable to lift it easily. Therefore, a small wagon is constructed and attached to them to support their tails and prevent them from dragging on the ground and becoming bruised and cut. The Rambam states that he was familiar with such a species of rams. Ewes may not go out with [chips of] wood that are placed in their nostrils so that they sneeze and dislodge the worms in their brains. tree. Based on Shabbat 54b, he explains that these chips were not necessary for rams. Since they butt each other frequently, this would dislodge the worms from their heads.A calf may not go out with a small yoke [that is placed] on its neck to break [its nature] and accustom it [to bearing a yoke so that later it will wear a larger yoke for] plowing. An animal may not go out with a muzzle placed in its mouth so that it will neither bite nor eat. A cow may not go out with a hedgehog skin on its teats so that crawling animals 54b singles out the species yalei, which Tosafot (based on Bava Batra 4a) identifies as the hedgehog itself. The Biblical name for this species anaka (Leviticus 11:30 resembles the word yenikah, "sucking," and refers to this species' tendency to suck milk. will not suck from it when it sleeps, based on Shabbat 54b). nor may it go out with a strap between its horns, regardless of whether it is placed there as an ornament or as a restraint. (based on Shabbat, loc. cit.), the Rambam relates that Rabbi Elazar ben Azaryah had a neighbor who let his cow go out with a strap between its horns. Rabbi Elazar did not rebuke him for this act, and hence the responsibility for this transgression was considered his. The Jerusalem Talmud (Shabbat 5:4) relates that as penance, Rabbi Elazar fasted until his teeth became black.When a goat's horns are pierced, it may go out with a rope tied to its horns on the Sabbath. If the rope is tied to [the goat's] beard, it is forbidden, lest it tear off and the person carry it in his hands in the public domain. The same applies in all similar situations.

הַזְּכָרִים יוֹצְאִים בָּעוֹר הַקָּשׁוּר לָהֶן עַל זַכְרוּתָן כְּדֵי שֶׁלֹּא יַעֲלוּ עַל הַנְּקֵבוֹת. וּבָעוֹר הַקָּשׁוּר לָהֶם עַל לִבֵּיהֶם כְּדֵי שֶׁלֹּא יִפְּלוּ עֲלֵיהֶם זְאֵבִים. וּבְמַטְלָנִיּוֹת הַמְרֻקָּמוֹת שֶׁמְּיַפִּין אוֹתָן בָּהֶן. וְהָרְחֵלוֹת יוֹצְאוֹת וְאַלְיָה שֶׁלָּהֶן קְשׁוּרָה לְמַעְלָה עַל גַּבָּן כְּדֵי שֶׁיַּעֲלוּ עֲלֵיהֶן הַזְּכָרִים. אוֹ קְשׁוּרָה לְמַטָּה כְּדֵי שֶׁלֹּא יַעֲלוּ עֲלֵיהֶם הַזְּכָרִים. וְיוֹצְאוֹת מְלֻפָּפוֹת בְּמַטְלָנִיּוֹת כְּדֵי שֶׁיִּהְיֶה הַצֶּמֶר שֶׁלָּהֶן נָקִי. הָעִזִּים יוֹצְאוֹת וְדַדֵּיהֶן קְשׁוּרוֹת כְּדֵי שֶׁיִּיבַשׁ מֵהֶן הֶחָלָב. אֲבָל אִם קְשָׁרָן כְּדֵי שֶׁלֹּא יֵצֵא הֶחָלָב עַד שֶׁיַּחֲלֹב אוֹתוֹ לָעֶרֶב הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ לֹא יֵצְאוּ:

Rams may go out with a wide strap tied against their genitals so that they will not copulate with females, with a hard piece of leather strapped over their hearts so that they will not be attacked by wolves, 53b offers both these interpretations for the word לבובין in the Mishnah, Shabbat 5:2. The Rambam interprets them as not being mutually exclusive and hence cites both of them as halachah. See also the following note. and with an embroidered cloth that is placed on them to make them more attractive. (loc. cit.) also offers this as an interpretation of the term לבובין. The Ra'avad, however, objects to this particular interpretation, explaining that, as obvious from the ruling in the previous halachah regarding a strap tied between a cow's horns, any article placed on an animal for the purpose of ornamentation is considered to be a burden and forbidden.The Maggid Mishneh (in his notes on the following halachah) offers an explanation that can resolve this difficulty. An ornament that an animal wears during the week is also permitted on the Sabbath. The ornaments that are forbidden are those that are placed on the animal for the Sabbath day alone.Note also an original interpretation offered by the Or Sameach, which explains that ornamentation that makes an animal attractive in the eyes of humans is forbidden. The cloth mentioned in this halachah is, by contrast, intended to make the animal attractive in the eyes of the other animals. Some support for this thesis can be derived from comparison to the other articles mentioned in this halachah.Ewes may go out with their fat tail tied to their backs, [exposing them] so that rams will copulate with them, or tied downward so that rams will not copulate with them. They may go out covered with a cloth so that their wool will remain clean. 5:2), the Rambam states that these coverings are placed over ewes and not over rams, because ewes' wool is softer than that of rams.Goats may go out with their teats tied so that their milk will dry up. They should not go out, however, [with their teats tied] so that no milk will flow out until they are milked in the evening. (Orach Chayim 305:6) follows the interpretation of Rashi, who explains that these ties are not bound tightly and the possibility exists that they will fall and that the owner will carry them in the public domain.

אֵין חֲמוֹר יוֹצֵא בְּאֻכָּף אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁקָּשׁוּר מֵעֶרֶב שַׁבָּת. וְלֹא יֵצֵא הַסּוּס בִּזְנַב שׁוּעָל וְלֹא בִּזְהוֹרִית שֶׁבֵּין עֵינָיו. וְלֹא תֵּצֵא בְּהֵמָה בִּקְרַסְטָל שֶׁבְּפִיהָ וְלֹא בְּסַנְדָּל שֶׁבְּרַגְלָהּ וְלֹא בְּקָמֵעַ שֶׁאֵינוֹ מֻמְחֶה לִבְהֵמָה. אֲבָל יוֹצְאָה הִיא בְּאֶגֶד שֶׁעַל גַּב הַמַּכָּה וּבְקַשְׂקַשִּׂים שֶׁעַל גַּבֵּי הַשֶּׁבֶר. וּבְשִׁלְיָה הַמְדֻלְדֶּלֶת בָּהּ. וּפוֹקֵק לָהּ זוֹג שֶׁבְּצַוָּארָהּ וּמְטַיֶּלֶת בּוֹ בֶּחָצֵר. וְנוֹתֵן לוֹ מַרְדַּעַת עַל הַחֲמוֹר בְּשַׁבָּת וּמְטַיֵּל בֶּחָצֵר. אֲבָל אֵין תּוֹלִין לָהּ קְרַסְטָל בְּפִיהָ בְּשַׁבָּת:

A donkey should not go out [wearing] a saddle even when it is tied upon it on Friday. A horse may not go out wearing a fox's tail 53a) explains that this was used as a talisman to ward off the evil eye. or with a scarlet thread between its eyes.An animal should not go out with a feeding bag [attached] to its mouth, nor with metal shoes, 305:41, which states that this restriction does not apply to iron horseshoes that are permanently affixed to the animal's feet. nor with an amulet that has not proven its efficacy for an animal. 305:21 states that a human being has angels and spiritual forces that will assist his recovery, and an animal lacks these. Therefore, the amulet used by a human need not be as powerful. An animal may, however, go out with a bandage placed on a wound, with plates placed on a broken bone,). or with a placenta that is hanging from it.We may plug up a bell hanging around its neck and allow [an animal] to stroll with it in a courtyard. Similarly, one may place, Orach Chayim 305:8 and the notes on Halachah 10.) a saddlecloth on a donkey). and allow it to stroll in a courtyard. One may not, however, attach a feeding bag to [an animal] on the Sabbath [even when it will not go beyond a courtyard]. (loc. cit.:10) mentions that, in a courtyard, a feeding bag may be attached to calves and ponies which do not have long necks and find it uncomfortable to eat by themselves.

כְּשֵׁם שֶׁאָדָם מְצֻוֶּה עַל שְׁבִיתַת בְּהֶמְתּוֹ בְּשַׁבָּת כָּךְ הוּא מְצֻוֶּה עַל שְׁבִיתַת עַבְדּוֹ וַאֲמָתוֹ וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהֵן בְּנֵי דַּעַת וּלְדַעַת עַצְמָן עוֹשִׂין מִצְוָה עָלֵינוּ לְשָׁמְרָן וּלְמָנְעָן מֵעֲשִׂיַּת מְלָאכָה בְּשַׁבָּת שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (שמות כג יב) "לְמַעַן יָנוּחַ שׁוֹרְךָ וַחֲמֹרֶךָ וְיִנָּפֵשׁ בֶּן אֲמָתְךָ וְהַגֵּר". עֶבֶד וְאָמָה שֶׁאָנוּ מְצֻוִּין עַל שְׁבִיתָתָן הֵם עֲבָדִים שֶׁמָּלוּ וְטָבְלוּ לְשֵׁם עַבְדוּת וְקִבְּלוּ מִצְוֹת שֶׁהָעֲבָדִים חַיָּבִין בָּהֶן. אֲבָל עֲבָדִים שֶׁלֹּא מָלוּ וְלֹא טָבְלוּ אֶלָּא קִבְּלוּ עֲלֵיהֶן שֶׁבַע מִצְוֹת שֶׁנִּצְטַוּוּ בְּנֵי נֹחַ בִּלְבַד הֲרֵי הֵן כְּגֵר תּוֹשָׁב וּמֻתָּרִין לַעֲשׂוֹת מְלָאכָה בְּשַׁבָּת לְעַצְמָן בְּפַרְהֶסְיָא כְּיִשְׂרָאֵל בְּחל. וְאֵין מְקַבְּלִין גֵּר תּוֹשָׁב אֶלָּא בִּזְמַן שֶׁהַיּוֹבֵל נוֹהֵג. הוֹאִיל וְגֵר תּוֹשָׁב עוֹשֶׂה מְלָאכָה לְעַצְמוֹ בְּשַׁבָּת וְגֵר צֶדֶק הֲרֵי הוּא כְּיִשְׂרָאֵל לְכָל דָּבָר. בְּמִי נֶאֱמַר וְיִנָּפֵשׁ בֶּן אֲמָתְךָ וְהַגֵּר. זֶה גֵּר תּוֹשָׁב שֶׁהוּא לְקִיטוֹ וּשְׂכִירוֹ שֶׁל יִשְׂרָאֵל כְּמוֹ בֶּן אֲמָתוֹ. שֶׁלֹּא יַעֲשֶׂה מְלָאכָה לְיִשְׂרָאֵל רַבּוֹ בְּשַׁבָּת אֲבָל לְעַצְמוֹ עוֹשֶׂה. וַאֲפִלּוּ הָיָה הַגֵּר זֶה עַבְדּוֹ הֲרֵי זֶה עוֹשֶׂה לְעַצְמוֹ:

Just as a person is commanded that his animals rest on the Sabbath, so too, he is commanded that his servants and maidservants rest. Although they have the power of thought, and act according to their own volition, [their master] is obligated to watch over them and prevent them from performing [forbidden] labor on the Sabbath, as [Exodus 23:12] states: "Thus your ox and your donkey may rest, and the son of your maidservant and the foreigner may find repose." and Radbaz (Vol. V, Responsum 1525) explain that the servants may be lax in their observance. Therefore, an additional command is given to their master.The servants and maidservants whom we are commanded to have rest [on the Sabbath] are servants that have been circumcised and have immersed themselves [in the mikveh], so that they be granted the status of servants who have accepted the mitzvot that servants are obligated to observe. 14;9, the Rambam explains that a Cana'anite servant goes through a process similar to that of conversion when purchased by a Jewish master. This process includes circumcision, immersion in the mikveh, and the acceptance of mitzvot. Once this process is completed, the servant is bound to observe all the mitzvot that are incumbent upon Jewish women. By contrast, servants who have not been circumcised and have not immersed themselves, but have merely accepted [the observance of] the seven [universal] laws commanded to the descendants of Noach,, Chapter 9 and 10.A servant may temporarily refuse to accept the mitzvot incumbent upon Jewish servants. In this instance, he does not undergo the process of circumcision and immersion and is given twelve months to decide whether to accept Jewish observance or not. If he refuses, he must be sold (Hilchot Avadim 8:12).In the interim, this servant must accept the observance of these seven universal laws. If not, he should be killed immediately (see Hilchot Avadim 1:6 and commentaries). are considered equivalent to "resident aliens" and are permitted to perform [forbidden] labors for their own sake in public as the Jews may during the week. [The status of] a resident alien is granted only in the era when the Jubilee year is observed. 10:9, there are many mitzvot whose observance is dependent on the observance of the yovel, the Jubilee year. The observance of the Jubilee year itself is dependent on the proportion of the Jewish people living in Eretz Yisrael. Only when the majority of our people live in the holy land is this mitzvah observed.[One might ask:] Since a resident alien may perform [forbidden] labors on his own behalf on the Sabbath, and a convert is considered equivalent to a native-born Jew in all matters, who is referred to with [the term הגר] in the phrase, "and the son of your maidservant and the foreigner [הגר] may find repose"?This refers to a resident alien who is an employee of a Jew, like "the son of [his] maidservant." Such a resident alien may not perform [forbidden] labors on behalf of his Jewish master on the Sabbath. states that this positive mitzvah prohibits not only one's servant or one's hired hand, but any gentile who has accepted the observance of these seven universal laws, from working on one's behalf on the Sabbath. For as soon as the gentile agrees to perform the forbidden labor on behalf of a Jew, he is considered as the Jew's hired hand.The question may arise: Concerning whom is the Rambam speaking in Chapter 6 when he states that asking a gentile to work on our behalf is prohibited merely by virtue of Rabbinic decree? A gentile who has not accepted the observance of any mitzvot at all.He may, however, perform [such labors] on his own behalf. Moreover, even if this foreigner is a servant [belonging to a Jewish master], [this foreigner] may perform [labors] for his own sake [on the Sabbath].