Animal's Clothing

Shabbat (5:1) | Yisrael Bankier | a year ago

The fifth perek of masechet Shabbat opens by discussing the prohibition of haotza'ah (carrying) as it applies to animals. Just as people are not allowed to carry on Shabbat in the public domain, one must not allow their animals to do so either, because one is commanded that their animals also "rest" on Shabbat. The first Mishnah lists items that do not constitute a violation of this prohibition. We shall try to understand this Mishnah.

The Bartenura explains that the items listed in the Mishnah are uses to restrain the animals and are therefore not considered a load. The Tifferet Yisrael elaborates that as soon as it is considered excessive or unnecessary, or the attachment is intended to be decorative in a manner that is not normal, then those items would be a considered load. One might still ask, if it is considered a reasonable and necessary restraint, why is that not considered carrying?

Rashi (Shabbat 51b) explains that an object used to restrain the animal is considered a tachshit, a decorative piece. Just as a person may wear jewellery when walking in the street and it is not considered carrying, a horse's halter is not considered a load.

The Ritva however explains that these objects are considered like the animal's clothing, such that walking out with them is not considered carrying.

Interestingly, the Iyunim in the Ryzman Mishnayot explains that there is a difference between these two explanations. Rashi compares the halter to a tachshit becuase both serve no benefit to the animal per se, but only the owner. Nevertheless, since we find that with respect to a tachshit it is not considered a load, the same is true for the restraints. The Ritva however compares the restraint to clothing since both are necessary for the body of the animal; whether for the animal itself or for the owner. Consequently, like clothing, the halter is batel (annulled) against the body of the animal.

The explanation appears to be based on the Derash Moshe (40:2 as cited in the Iyunim) who explains that the one might think that restraints are permitted since anything that is needed for the animal is considered batel to the animal. The issue with this explanation is that it would work for things that the animal itself needs, for example a packsaddle for a donkey that keeps it warm. Even though sometimes restraints protect the animal from get injured or attacked, most of the time they are for the owner's benefit only.

The Derash Moshe therefore explains that there are two ways to understand this issue. One understanding is that anything that ensures the care and security of the animal is for the benefit of the animal. This is defined by the owner. Even though the animal instinctively might want to flee, they have no "daat" in this matter.¹ Alternatively, by virtue of the ownership of the animal, the owner can batel anything deemed necessary for the animal -- and not specifically things that benefit the body of the animal. This is much like the ability of a person to defined objects that have benefit to him as clothing -- he can do the same for an animal. In other words, the owner can define these items as "clothing" for the animal.

The Derash Moshe uses these two understandings to explain the debate between Rashi and Tosfot regarding whether an animal can walk in the public domain with adornments (noi). According to the first understanding, only things that are needed for the body of the animal are batel to the animal. That would not allow adornments since they are not needed for the body of the animal. This understanding would align with the Tosfot that forbid animals from wearing such items. According to the second understanding the owner can defined certain objects as clothing, even those objects that only serve a benefit to the owner and not the animal -- like halters. This understanding would align with Rashi that permits adornments. Since the owner derives pleasure from them, he can define them as being clothing.²

Download