1. 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."¹We have translated the verse as it appears in the Torah. The standard printed texts of the Mishneh Torah 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.²Bava Kama 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.³I.e., the positive commandment of resting on the Sabbath also implies not having one's beasts perform labor. Therefore, a person who directs his animal [while] it is carrying a burden on the Sabbath is not liable.⁴See Halachah 6 and notes.

2. 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."⁵This is the prohibition against working on the Sabbath mentioned in the Ten Commandments.

[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.⁶This principle (which has its source in Makkot 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.

3. 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.⁷Although the Jew is not making the animal work himself, he is not fulfilling the Torah's command that his animal rest.

Our Sages forbade selling a large animal to a gentile,⁸In his Commentary on the Mishnah (Pesachim 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].⁹The Kessef Mishneh 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.¹⁰Note the parallel in Hilchot Avadim 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 injured¹¹And is unfit for most labor. Since, however, there are tasks that it can perform, the prohibition is not nullified (Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah, loc. cit.). should not be sold [to a gentile]. It is, however, permitted to sell [an animal to a gentile] through a broker,¹²In his Commentary on the Mishnah (loc. cit.), 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].

4. It is permitted to sell a gentile a horse, since a horse is used only for human transportation¹³Note the differences between this ruling and the Rambam's statements in his Commentary on the Mishnah (Pesachim 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.¹⁴Note the Beit Yosef (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."¹⁵See the explanation of this principle in Chapter 18, Halachah 16.

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.¹⁶Note the parallel in Hilchot Avodat Kochavim 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].¹⁷The Lechem Mishneh 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.

5. In a place where the accepted custom is to sell a small animal¹⁸E.g., a sheep or a goat. to gentiles, one may make such a sale. In a place where the accepted custom is not to make such sales, one should not.¹⁹The Siftei Cohen (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.

6. [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:²⁰Although we are forbidden to ask a gentile to perform a forbidden labor on our behalf on the Sabbath, as explained in Chapter 6, leniency is granted in this case. We suspect that if the person was required to abandon his money on the Sabbath, he would disobey the law and carry it himself instead. (See Chapter 6, Halachah 22, and the Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah, Shabbat 24:1.) If he has an animal with him,²¹Note Shulchan Aruch HaRav 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].²²The Mishnah Berurah 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.²³The Rashba and others question the Rambam's ruling in this instance, arguing that since the animal does not perform the akirah 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 decreed²⁴Shabbat 17b. that one should not place a purse on an animal on the Sabbath unless one is not accompanied by a gentile.²⁵As the Rambam states in Chapter 6, Halachah 16, we are not commanded to see that a gentile rests on the Sabbath, while we do have such an obligation with regard to our animals.

(See also Shulchan Aruch HaRav 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.)

7. Although the person is also accompanied by a deaf mute, a mentally incompetent individual, and a minor²⁶These three types of individuals are often mentioned together in the Talmudic literature. They are all considered to be lacking the intellectual capacity to control their conduct. Hence, they are not obligated to observe the mitzvot., 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.²⁷Rashi (Shabbat 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.²⁸The deaf-mute has a minimal amount of understanding, and thus, were he to carry an article on the Sabbath, the potential for making an error and thinking that all are allowed to carry is greater (ibid.). If [he is accompanied by] a mentally incompetent individual and a minor, he should give it²⁹The Rashba, the Ramban, Rav Moshe Cohen, and others differ with the Rambam and maintain that one should should give the individual the purse while he is walking, and should remove the purse from him before he stands (as explained in the previous halachah), so that the individual carrying the purse will perform neither the akirah 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.³⁰Since the child will ultimately become obligated to perform mitzvot, it is preferable that he not violate them in his childhood. If [he is accompanied by] a deaf-mute and a minor, he may give it to whomever he desires.³¹Shabbat 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].³²As mentioned in Chapter 12, Halachot 15 and 19, a person is permitted to carry within a space of four cubits. Thus, each time he stops, the four cubits in which he is allowed to carry become redefined, and in this manner he can carry the article several miles on the Sabbath. (See also Chapter 13, Halachah 10, and Chapter 6, Halachah 22.)

It must be emphasized that transferring the article less than four cubits at a time is permitted only when carrying the article in the public domain, but not with regard to transferring the article into the private domain. This must be accomplished by throwing the article in an irregular manner (Shulchan Aruch HaRav 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,³³The leniencies granted to allow a person to maintain possession of his own property do not apply to a lost object that he discovered, since he will not suffer a loss by leaving it. Nevertheless, once a person has already taken possession of the lost object, it is considered to be his own property. 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,³⁴I.e., if there is a danger, because of thieves or the like. he may [carry it] by walking less than four cubits [at a time].³⁵According to the Rambam, as stated in Chapter 6, Halachah 22, there is no prohibition against carrying an article less than four cubits at a time. Most authorities, however, differ with him on this issue and maintain that this is a leniency that is permitted only in rare instances. Hence, in the case of a lost article when a person will not suffer a loss, the leniency is not granted. It is the opinion of these authorities that is quoted in the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 266:7).

8. It is permitted to lead an animal in the public domain with its reins and its bridle,³⁶The bridle and reins are not considered muktzeh, 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 it³⁷This halachah revolves around the following principle: A restraint that is necessary to control an animal is not considered to be a burden and may be borne by the animal on the Sabbath. - for example, a horse with a neck-ring, a camel with a rope tied to its mouth, a female camel with an iron bit,³⁸In his Commentary on the Mishnah (Shabbat 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.³⁹A person who leads an animal into the public domain with such a restraint is thus considered as having violated the prohibition against having an animal work on the Sabbath. For any excessive or insufficient restraint is considered to be a burden.⁴⁰When quoting this law, the Shulchan Aruch (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.

9. 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,⁴¹The Tur (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 hand⁴²If the rope extends longer, it might appear that one is carrying the rope and not using it as a restraint for the animal (Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah, Shabbat 5:3). and the rope leading from [each] camel's mouth to one's hand is at least a handbreadth above the earth.⁴³If the rope hangs lower, it does not appear to be a restraint for the animal, but rather an unnecessary burden (Rashi, Shabbat 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.⁴⁴Shabbat 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.⁴⁵A bell will make the animal look more attractive (Rashi, Shabbat 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).

10. An animal should not go out with a bell [attached to] its coverings,⁴⁶Rashi and Tosafot (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 seal⁴⁷Identifying it as belonging to its master. [attached to] its neck, a seal [attached to] its coverings,⁴⁸This prohibition applies even if the seal is woven into the animal's covering (Shulchan Aruch HaRav 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,⁴⁹In his Commentary on the Mishnah (Shabbat 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.⁵⁰This refers to wooden restraint placed on the animal's neck to prevent it from being able to turn its head backwards. Such a restraint would be placed on an animal to deter it from chewing on a wound on its back (ibid.).

A donkey may not go out with a saddle-cloth unless it is tied to it on Friday.⁵¹Shabbat 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 tail⁵²In his Commentary on the Mishnah (loc. cit.: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.⁵³Our translation is based on Rav Kapach's commentary.

A camel should not go out with its foreleg tied to its hind leg⁵⁴Our translation is based on the Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah (loc. cit.).or its foreleg bound.⁵⁵I.e., one of its back feet to one of its front legs, so that it can walk on only three legs (ibid.). In both these instances, the animal is able to walk, but cannot walk fast. The same applies to all other animals.

11. Chickens⁵⁶In his Commentary on the Mishnah (Shabbat 5:4), the Rambam emphasizes that this applies to both male and female chickens. may not go out with cords,⁵⁷Attached to their feet for the purpose of identification (ibid., based on Shabbat 54b). nor with straps on their feet.⁵⁸The Rambam (loc. cit.) 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.⁵⁹The Rambam (loc. cit.) 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.⁶⁰The Rambam (ibid.) states that this refers to chips from the yachnun 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 animals⁶¹Significantly, Shabbat 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,⁶²The sharp prickles of the hedgehog skin will annoy the crawling animals and prevent them from sucking the cow's milk (Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah, loc. cit., 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.⁶³In his Commentary on the Mishnah [loc. cit. (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.

12. 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,⁶⁴Shabbat 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.⁶⁵Shabbat (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.⁶⁶In his Commentary on the Mishnah (Shabbat 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.⁶⁷This may be done to change the goats' hormonal balance so that they will conceive faster. They should not go out, however, [with their teats tied] so that no milk will flow out until they are milked in the evening.⁶⁸Rabbenu Yonah explains that the goats' teats were tied for this purpose on the Sabbath and not during the week. During the week, they would be milked in the morning and in the evening, and there was little chance of sufficient pressure building up to cause the milk to ooze out. On the Sabbath, by contrast, they could not be milked from sunset until after nightfall on the next day, and the possibility existed that extra milk would ooze out.

The Shulchan Aruch (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.

13. A donkey should not go out [wearing] a saddle even when it is tied upon it on Friday.⁶⁹Although a donkey may go out wearing a saddlecloth, as stated in Halachah 10, a saddle itself is considered a burden. A horse may not go out wearing a fox's tail⁷⁰Rashi (Shabbat 53a) explains that this was used as a talisman to ward off the evil eye. or with a scarlet thread between its eyes.⁷¹Because it is an unnecessary ornament and therefore considered a burden. See the notes on the previous halachah.

An animal should not go out with a feeding bag [attached] to its mouth, nor with metal shoes,⁷²Note the Mishnah Berurah 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.⁷³Even if an amulet has proven its efficacy for a human, as long as it has not proven its efficacy for an animal, we are in doubt of its usefulness. Shulchan Aruch HaRav 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,⁷⁴Chapter 19, Halachah 13 grants a person license to go out with a bandage on a wound. The same concept applies regarding an animal. with plates placed on a broken bone,⁷⁵So that it will set in place and heal (Maggid Mishneh). or with a placenta that is hanging from it.

We may plug up a bell hanging around its neck⁷⁶The bell must be plugged, since it is forbidden to ring bells on the Sabbath as stated in Chapter 23, Halachah 4. and allow [an animal] to stroll with it in a courtyard.⁷⁷In this and the following instance, the leniency is granted in a courtyard, but not in the public domain. Similarly, one may place⁷⁸The saddle cloth may not be tied, since by doing so one would be making use of an animal. (See the Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 305:8 and the notes on Halachah 10.) a saddlecloth on a donkey⁷⁹This leniency applies only to a donkey that chronically suffers from cold, as explained in the notes on Halachah 10, and not to a horse or other similar species (Shulchan Aruch, loc. cit.). 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].⁸⁰The Shulchan Aruch (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.

14. 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."⁸¹The Ra'avad objects to the Rambam's decision, explaining that since the servants are themselves obligated to observe the prohibition against working on the Sabbath, of what purpose is the prohibition imposed on their master? The Maggid Mishneh 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.⁸²In Hilchot Issurei Bi'ah 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,⁸³These seven universal laws include the prohibitions against the worship of false gods, cursing God, killing, stealing, incest and adultery, eating a limb torn from a living animal and the obligation to set up courts of law to judge civil matters. The Rambam explains these laws in Hilchot Melachim, 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 sake⁸⁴But not for the sake of a Jew. In Chapter 6, it was explained that there is a Rabbinic prohibition preventing a Jew from instructing a gentile to perform a forbidden labor on his behalf. This halachah emphasizes that when a gentile is the Jew's servant, the Jew is violating a positive commandment of the Torah itself by having the gentile work for him on the Sabbath. See notes 87 and 88 below. 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.⁸⁵As explained in Hilchot Shemitah V'Yovel 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"?⁸⁶The intent of this question is not directly obvious in a translated text. The Hebrew word גר has two meanings in Halachic terminology: a convert - גר צדק - and a resident alien - גר תושב. Since, as the Rambam indicates, the verse does not appear to refer to either of these individuals, what is the intent of the word גר in that verse?

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.⁸⁷The Maggid Mishneh 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].⁸⁸Thus, according to the Rambam, the verse quoted above contains two prohibitions: one requiring one to watch that any servants who have accepted the mitzvot observe the Sabbath laws, and another, prohibiting us from benefiting from any work done on our behalf by a gentile who has not accepted these mitzvot.