Aruch HaShulchan. We have reached siman shin-heh, “Din Behemah Shel Yisrael BeShabbat” (the law of Israel’s animal on Shabbat), which has twenty-two se'ifim (paragraphs). This section deals with the laws of behemah (animal) on Shabbat. What might be the practical application? People in our society have dogs and cats. In Israel, I’m sure there are farmers with cows; people might have ranches or horses. Fish tanks may also be relevant. We have to see what the laws are for animals.
We know the Torah says that your animal also may not work. The Aruch begins: “Bevehemah yesh shenei issurei Torah ve'echad miDerabbanan” (With regard to an animal, there are two Torah issurim (prohibitions) and one rabbinic prohibition). There are three issurim (prohibitions) here. The two Torah prohibitions concern avodah (work): “shelo tisa shum masa aleha beShabbat, velo telech bekaron” (that it not carry any load on Shabbat or go with a wagon). An animal may not carry anything on its back, and it may not draw a wagon. The verse says, “Lema'an yanuach shorecha vachamorecha” (so that your ox and donkey may rest). This is not limited to an ox and a donkey; the same law applies to all kinds of animals, wild animals, and birds belonging to a Jew. The be'alim (owners) may not place any load on them. Even if someone else puts the load on the animal, the ba'al habayit (homeowner) is obligated to remove it.
The liability applies specifically to akirah (removal) and hanachah (placement), as in the case of a person. These are the same laws as carrying: there must be an akirah and a hanachah for a person to be chayav (liable). The command applies only to one’s own animal, not to an animal belonging to a non-Jew.
The second prohibition is mechammer. That means the animal is carrying a load and the person is guiding it. The prohibition is derived from “Lo ta'aseh chol melachah… atah uvehemtecha” (You shall not do any work… you and your animal). What kind of work is performed by both a person and an animal? Mechammer. You lead the animal while it walks with something on its back. So the text identifies this as mechammer and points out that mechammer is an issur de'Oraita (from the Torah). It applies even to an animal belonging to a non-Jew. Carrying is prohibited only when it is your animal, but mechammer is prohibited with any animal; you may not lead any animal in this way. That is what it sounds like, because the text says, “keshehi te'unah masa” (when it is carrying a load).
This was explained in siman resh-samech-vav, se'if yud-tet. There we explained why two different prohibitions are needed. The third prohibition is derabbanan (rabbinic): one may not use one’s animal at all on Shabbat. That includes leaning on it. It may also be muktzeh (set aside).
The law of mechammer was explained there, and the law of using an animal will be explained in this siman and the next one. The main subject of this siman is the animal’s rest: it may not carry a load. Women and men are equally subject to the laws of an animal’s rest, as they are to all the laws of Shabbat. This is explicit in the Mishnah at the end of Bameh Behemah (With what may an animal go out), in the case of the cow belonging to Rabbi Elazar ben Azaryah’s neighbor. The neighbor was a woman, and her animal went out with a strap between its horns. Rabbi Elazar was criticized for not rebuking her. You see that it was a woman’s animal; there is no difference between a woman’s animal and a man’s animal.
This basic principle needs explanation, because there are things an animal must wear for its protection, such as a tag or some type of collar, without which it would not be protected at all. Such an item is not considered a load, just as a person’s clothing is not considered a load. It becomes clothing for the animal, or a tachshit (ornament). The same laws apply.
An animal may also need something for warmth. They put saddles or sweaters on animals. A chamor (donkey) is naturally cold and needs a marda'at (saddle blanket) to keep it warm. Obviously, that is like clothing for a person; the saddle blanket is considered clothing.
Similarly, if something is put on an animal for a benefit, such as covering sheep so their wool does not get dirty, protecting their udders, catching the milk, or preventing males from mating with them, these things are also like clothing for a person. Even if the animal itself does not need the item, but the person does, it is still considered for the animal’s benefit, like something that protects it. The animal does not mind, because it has no understanding; but if it did understand, it would want this. Therefore, this is considered its clothing. A load is work and is considered a form of labor, about which the Torah says, “lo ta'aseh” (you shall not do). It also says, “ulema'an yanuach shorecha vachamorecha” (so that your ox and donkey may rest). But with the things we have discussed, the animal benefits from them. Since it gets a benefit, they are considered clothing. That is the general principle: not everything on an animal’s back is necessarily considered carrying.
The Sages also said, “Kol shehu lenetiruta sharei” (Anything that protects the animal is permitted). If the animal is not protected by the item, it is considered a load, since the item does not actually protect it. Any extra protection is also considered a load, when the animal is protected by less. This applies specifically when it is recognizable that the protection is excessive. If it is not very noticeable, even if the animal could perhaps be protected with less, one cannot be so exacting. You are not going to be so particular that you remove one button or one small thing. As long as the excess is not obvious, it is permitted. That is the way people act.
Anything that is purely decorative, such as ornaments put on horses, is prohibited. It is not like clothing; animals do not have ornaments. Some say that a decoration customarily worn during the week is permitted, because it is like clothing; only a decoration that is not customarily worn during the week, but is used by some people occasionally, is prohibited. Tosafot hold that every kind of decoration is prohibited, and that is the main ruling for us. There are no ornaments for animals.
It seems to me that even according to those who permit decorations, that applies only to decorations customarily worn when the animal is not working. But decoration worn while working—for example, wealthy people decorating their horses when riding them or traveling in a wagon—is certainly prohibited, because that is a decorative load. Ordinary decoration that people put on a horse when it is not working is one thing; decoration worn when the animal is working is a load.
These are the details of this siman. The entire fifth chapter of Masechet Shabbat is its foundation. If a dog wins the Westminster show, you might want to put a Chazak uvaruch (Well done) blue ribbon on it. That is a common case. It is a good example.
Now, let’s consider the female camel. “Baruch ha'am” (Blessed is the people). We have a female camel that needs more protection than a male camel. The bottom line is that the female camel is more unruly than the male camel, so it needs more protection. Since it needs more protection, you can put more on it for protection; if you put that same thing on the male, it would be considered carrying.
It goes out with a nose ring. They put an iron bit in the animal’s mouth to control it. It is an iron ring, and they pierce its nose and put the ring through it. The animal is controlled through the ring, and is protected by it.
A donkey from Luv (Libya) is a wild donkey. The donkey comes from Libya, as the verse says, “Put (Put) veLuvim hayu be'ezratech” (Put and the Libyans were among your helpers). Kush (Cush). Rabbeinu Tam explained that this refers to Mitzrayim (Egypt). It seems to me that it is part of Mitzrayim (Egypt), rather than Egypt proper, because the verse mentions Kush (Cush) itself and Mitzrayim (Egypt), and then Put and the Libyans. So Libya is next to Mitzrayim (Egypt). If so, “Luv” refers to Egypt, but to a part of the country. This animal is stronger and needs a stronger iron bit. They put it between its cheeks. This bit is a bridle, fitted around its head and cheeks. The Mishnah calls it a prumbiya. The Libyan goes out with a prumbiya.
A camel goes out with a halter. A mule, donkey, and horse go out with a halter, with the bridle, or with both. The Tur and Shulchan Aruch, se'if alef, say this, and the question is that the Gemara allows the bridle only for the Libyan donkey. Some deleted “donkey” from the text. The bridle is the item used for the Libyan donkey, the prumbiya.
But there is no need for that correction. We explicitly find in Bava Metzia a case of someone who acquired a donkey and its bit, which shows that this is ordinary for a donkey. You are allowed to put a bridle on a donkey, not only on a camel.
The Aruch explains that “aze” means straps of a halter that go over the cheeks and forehead. The word “bridle” includes one made of straps and ropes. So there are different kinds of bridles: a leather bridle and a metal bridle. The metal one is for the Libyan animal, and the leather one is for the donkey. The word “bridle” is general; what it is made of depends on how wild the animal is. Accordingly, for the strong Libyan donkey, the bit is iron. For an ordinary donkey, the bit is a bridle, but not an iron one.
One may wrap the halter rope around the animal’s neck. That is another novelty. Usually the rope trails, so they can wrap it around the neck; it is not considered carrying. Once it is attached to the animal’s nose or cheeks, the excess can be wrapped around the neck. It may go out that way, as it is customarily done during the week, and this is not considered excessive protection. One may also handle the halter and put it on the animal. It is not muktzeh, since it is needed for this. However, one may not lean on the animal. One may not use an animal on Shabbat, because of the rabbinic decree against using animals.
As the text says, anything that is clothing for an animal is not muktzeh. It is permitted to put it on, just as it is permitted to feed and water the animal. You can feed your animal on Shabbat, so you can put a dog sweater on the dog on Shabbat. Why can’t you lean on an animal? They might come to ride it or use it. The Sages made a decree so that a person would not come to ride the animal and violate a Torah prohibition.
If one tied the rope in the horse’s mouth, it is not protected by it, since it will slip off. This is not like a halter tied around the head, which will not slip off. Since it is not secure, it is considered a load. Conversely, an ordinary donkey may not go out with a prumbiya, because it is an iron bridle and is excessive protection. It is interesting: what is the difference? It is heavier. You can use a bridle, but if it is leather, you can use it; if it is metal, it is too much. The point is that it is extra weight and the animal does not need it. Perhaps there is a measure involved. If you add more, perhaps each added measure is another measure of carrying. We would not say that about a person wearing ten belts if they are ornaments, but this is not an ornament. Perhaps the issue is that you could use a lighter strap. This is a carrying issue, not the laws of tza'ar ba'alei chayim (animal suffering). It may simply be a larger item, with more components, so that one is carrying more. We will continue.
An unruly donkey that needs more protection may go out with it. Therefore, with any animal whose temperament is unruly, even if the other animals of that species do not need strong protection, this particular animal may go out with the protection it needs. It depends on the individual animal, not the species. You might have a generally docile species, but one particular animal is wild; the ruling follows that animal.
With regard to animals with a shir (ring or collar), such as hunting dogs, and small animals that have a kind of band around the neck, with a ring fixed to it for inserting a leash, they may be pulled by it. They may go out with the collar around their necks, and people may pull them by it. So, apparently, you can walk a dog on Shabbat and even pull the leash. The leash is attached to the dog, so what are you doing besides lifting it? But you're carrying the reins in your hands! The text says it is permitted to pull them by it.
The Meiri says this is for protection: if the animal runs, you can grab the reins to stop it. The wrapping must be loose enough that a hand can fit through it. It cannot be too tight. But purely decorative use is prohibited, because animals do not have ornaments. Rashi explains that even purely decorative use is permitted when this is the animal’s ordinary weekday practice. We already discussed this in se'if gimmel.
An ordinary dog that is not a hunting dog may not go out with a ring attached to it. There is a question about a place where people use this to identify that the dog has an owner. If the ring is absent, it may indicate that the dog has no owner. A stray dog might be killed, so perhaps a collar is permitted to show that it belongs to someone. But the question is whether it may go out with it. It seems that it is prohibited. The proof is that chickens do not go out with strings used to identify them. This indicates that anything used as a sign is considered a load. So a dog collar used for identification appears to be a problem. The leash may be permitted; the issue is the collar or tag used as a sign of ownership. It may be a load, because it is not an ornament or clothing for the animal.
Rams go out with coverings. This is a piece of leather tied under their private parts so they will not mate with the females and become weak. Ewes go out with their tails raised. Their tails are covered and lifted so that the males can mate with them. They go out with coverings: a woolen garment is put on them to keep their wool clean. Goats go out with their udders tied. Their teats are tied tightly so they will shrink and not produce milk, so that the animal will get fat. If, however, the tying is to protect the milk and keep it from falling on the ground, it is prohibited to tie them tightly. In that case, the owner wants the animal to produce milk, but only wants to keep it from spilling. So the tying is loose, and it might fall off; the person might then pick it up. When the purpose is to dry up the milk, it is tied tightly, and we are not concerned that it will fall.
There is no need to ask how two opposite things can both benefit the animals. Some goats are fat, and it benefits them to produce milk; thin goats benefit from not producing milk. That is exactly the distinction. Also, since they are the property of a person, the owner’s purpose matters. Everything follows the owner’s wishes.
This applies specifically when the matter concerns the animal’s body itself. A tag that serves as a sign is different. That is not for the animal; it is entirely for the owner, and may be a load.
A donkey goes out with a marda'at when it is cold. Donkeys are cold by nature, and need a saddle blanket. Even in Tamuz, in August, the Gemara says, “Chamra afilu bitkufat Tamuz karira leh” (A donkey is cold even in Tamuz, in August). Therefore, a blanket is always placed on it to keep its back warm. It is like a small saddle, and it may go out with it when it is tied to its body.
If it is not tied, there is concern that it may fall off and a person may pick it up. Tying it on Shabbat is prohibited because one has to lean on the animal while tying it. That involves using an animal, and the Sages made a decree because one might come to ride it. Therefore, it should be put on before Shabbat. Other animals may not go out with these blankets, because they do not need warmth; it is a load. A donkey may go out with a marda'at, but not with an ordinary saddle. The saddle is a different item, and it is a load.
On Shabbat, it is permitted to place the blanket on a donkey if it does not need to be tied, for example, when the animal is going into the yard. One can simply place it on; one does not have to lean against the animal. In a city with an eruv (Sabbath boundary), it may go out. These laws about carrying concern a place without an eruv. With an eruv, can one give the animal a load? The issue of an animal’s rest may be different. The discussion here is that the animal is not more restricted than a person; in a place with an eruv, carrying is permitted.
A horse is different. One may not even put a marda'at on a horse in the yard, because the horse does not need it. People may think that the horse is being prepared to carry a load. That is mar'it ayin (the appearance of wrongdoing). One may not remove the blanket from a horse on Shabbat either. There is no suffering that requires removing it, so leave it on; removing it would be unnecessary effort. If the animal needs it removed because it is suffering, perhaps that would be a different case. But you cannot load an animal in the yard, and you cannot even put a blanket on the horse; the Sages stopped you before that.
When it is very cold and the horse is suffering from the cold, one can put a marda'at on it. In the summer, if flies are bothering the horse’s face, one can put something over its nose to keep them away.
If a donkey has come back from the road wearing a saddle and is overheating, one may remove it, but should not lift it off by hand. The load of the saddle causes some discomfort, but the animal will cool down when it rests. One can untie the rope underneath it, without leaning on the animal, and the saddle will fall off by itself.
One does not hang a basket around a donkey’s neck to put food in it. The animal can eat without this apparatus; put the food on the ground. There is a decree because one may have to lean on the animal to attach the basket. This is a novelty: some animals have short necks, and bending down to eat causes them suffering. It is permitted to hang a small keli (vessel) on them in the yard, since it is easy to put on without leaning on them. They may not go out into the public domain with it, because it is carrying.
In our time, some people hang a bag with shin shin around a horse’s neck so it can eat. The text says this is not correct, because the horse can eat from the trough. So one should not put the shin shin around its neck.
A horse may not go out with a fox’s tail hung on its tail so that ayin hara (evil eye) will not affect it. They used to hang a tail between its eyes, or perhaps a fox’s tail; I do not know exactly what they used. It is for the evil eye. It may not go out with a red thread used for decoration either. Goats may not go out with a pouch tied over their udders to prevent them from being scratched. Why not? That is a significant need for them. The Rambam, however, does not mention this law. The Gemara also does not state this as a prohibition; it only says that there was a case involving goats in Antuchya (Antioch), whose udders were large, and pouches were made for them so that their udders would not be scratched.
The Rambam seems to provide the opposite proof. He writes that male animals may go out with leather tied over their hearts so that wolves will not attack them. This is also something put on the animal to protect it. What is the difference between protecting the heart and protecting the udder? The Tur and Shulchan Aruch cite this law but not the Rambam’s law. It seems to me that the Tur and Shulchan Aruch hold that, for an animal, something used to prevent injury is considered a load. As with a person, protecting the body is permitted, but preventing blood or dirt from reaching one’s clothing is considered a load if the item is not proper clothing. Accordingly, they ruled this prohibited and did not follow the Mordechai, who says that leather tied on in this way is permitted.
There are amoraim who hold that there is a machloket (dispute). The Rambam holds that they do not disagree, as the Maggid Mishneh writes there. I am puzzled that the commentators did not point this out at all. The Rambam was stringent, the Rambam was lenient, and nobody pointed out the issue.
Could a person send a dog out wearing a sweater in winter? Yes, certainly. But not with a collar? We have to look into the collar. If it is for identification, it sounded like a problem according to this discussion, unless it is needed to hold the leash. A tag used for identification appears to be a problem.
They also write that a load-bearing animal may not go out with a muzzle in its mouth, which is used to stop it from eating in other people’s fields. Nor may an animal go out with shoes on its hooves to prevent injury. I did not find the law about the cow going out with a muzzle in the Rambam either. The reason for prohibiting the shoes may be that they could fall off and the person might pick them up. But an animal may go out with a bandage over a wound, and with splints tied around a broken bone. It may also go out with part of the afterbirth that has emerged and remains attached to it.
A bell around an animal’s neck may be plugged, and the animal may walk with it in the yard. But it may not go out with it into reshut harabim (public domain), even if it is plugged. Whether the bell is around its neck or on its garment, the reason is that it looks as though the animal is being taken to the market. People may think it is being taken there to be sold. If the bell is not tied to the animal, it is also a load. Wearing a bell is not itself considered a load, but in the public domain there is a decree because of the appearance of taking it to the market.
If the bell is not plugged, it is prohibited even in the yard because it makes a sound. There is also a concern that, when people hear the bell, even in the yard, they will think the animal is being taken to market to be sold. Yehudah Hamakabi holds that every musical instrument is prohibited; even when it is not being played, if it rattles and makes a sound, it makes a sound. A bell on an animal could make people think it is being led to market. That is how they used to do it with livestock.
An animal may not go out with a seal, whether it is around its neck or on its garment, because the seal is a sign, and that is prohibited for an animal. This is like the case of a goat with a sign and strings tied on chickens. Another concern is that the seal might become detached and the owner might carry it.
A camel may not go out with a small pillow hung under its tail. Even if it is tied to its tail, it may not go out unless it is tied both to its tail and to its hump. If it is tied to both, it will not fall. If it is tied only to its tail, there is concern that it will fall and a person will carry it.
No animal may go out akud or ragul. Akud means that one hand is tied to one foot. Ragul means that one of its feet is tied upward so that it cannot walk normally. It seems that this is done so the animal will not run away, and it is excessive protection.
We have now seen the whole chapter, with the illustrations. The picture shows the bit put in the animal’s mouth, the prumbiya, another kind of collar, and the donkey’s marda'at. It also shows the coverings for the male animals and the raised tails, the udders tied up either to dry them or to catch the milk, and the leg coverings. We will see these pictures again in the Shulchan Aruch.
One may not tie camels one after another while holding the first halter, with all of them following. It looks like they are being led to be sold. But if a person holds several camel halters in his hand, it is permitted. Some prohibit that too, because even then it looks like they are being led to market. According to that opinion, the only permitted case is taking out one animal by itself and leading it by a rope or halter.
Even when taking out one animal by a rope, one must be careful that less than a tefach (handbreadth) of the rope extends below the hand. Otherwise, it looks as if one is carrying the rope by itself, rather than leading an animal. One should also not leave a lot of rope between the hand and the animal, so that the rope does not reach within a tefach of the ground. If it reaches that low, it can look as though the rope is by itself. The rope is tied to the animal, but it should not appear separate from it. If the rope is long, wrap it around the animal’s neck and leave it loose enough to fit a hand between the rope and the neck.
A donkey may not go out with a marda'at that was not tied to it before Shabbat. It may not go out with a bell, even if it is plugged, or with a ladder-like device tied around its neck to keep it from rubbing a wound. This is not like a bandage on a wound: the device is important, and there is concern that the tying will loosen and it will fall. Nor may it go out with a strap around its leg, a thick kind of covering made of straw and tied around the legs of an animal with short legs that strike one another. It protects the legs, but it could fall and be carried. If an animal’s leg is injured, one may tie it with a strap so that it heals and returns to normal. The concern is that it might fall and lead to carrying, or that it is not needed.
Chickens may not go out with strings tied around their legs as signs. These are loads. They may not go out with straps tied around their legs to prevent them from breaking vessels, since this is not for the chickens’ own benefit; it is a load. But if the purpose is to keep a chicken from running away, it is permitted. Chickens are more prone to run away, so this is not considered excessive protection.
Rams may not go out with a small cart under their tails. People put it there so that the tail will not drag on the ground. The Yerushalmi explains that the prohibition is because the cart digs into the ground. Goats may not go out with a certain kind of wood put in their noses to make them sneeze, so that worms will fall from their heads. It could fall out of the nose and then be carried.
A calf may not go out with a small yoke put around its neck. Nor may it go out with something placed in its nose to stop it from nursing. That causes suffering, so it is a load. A cow may not go out with a piece of leather put over its udders to prevent creatures from nursing. It is not tied tightly, so there is concern it may fall and be carried. A strap between the horns is also prohibited, whether it is for protection or decoration. If it is for protection, it is excessive protection; if it is for decoration, animals do not have ornaments.
A cow or ox may not go out with a rope around its neck if it does not need protection. That is an unnecessary ornament or addition, and a load. If it is unruly and needs the protection, it may go out with it. Calves may go out with it because they are easily unruly and need protection. A long rope may be wrapped around the neck, leaving enough space to fit a hand between the rope and the neck.
An animal may go out with an amulet that is known to work for animals, but not with one known to work for people, even if it is known to work for a person. A person has more mazal (fortune) than an animal. “Adam uvehemah toshi'a Hashem” (You save humans and animals, Hashem). The explanation is that a person has mazal, and an angel advocates for him from above; his mazal helps the amulet work for him. That is not the case with an animal.
This siman is as long as the exile. A general principle is that whatever the Sages prohibited because it is a load is permitted in a yard, even one without an eruv. As for a karmelit (semi-public domain), some say it is prohibited there too. This is also the implication of the Semag, which writes that a bell is prohibited in a karmelit. That is a stringency.
Why should the bell be different? One can say that the reason is that it looks as if the animal is being led to be sold. That would certainly be prohibited even in a karmelit. The Semag also gives the reason of carrying, but that applies to the public domain. So the bell is prohibited in the public domain as a load, and in a karmelit because it looks as if the animal is being led to market. Other things would be permitted in a karmelit. The bell is not a pair of something; “zug” means a bell. The bell makes it look as if the animal is being sold, because they used to put a bell on it for that purpose. So the prohibition is not carrying, but selling; selling would be prohibited in a karmelit. The Semag explicitly writes that the other things are prohibited in the public domain. Therefore, the main ruling seems to follow the Rishonim (early authorities): these things are prohibited only in the public domain.
However, where the reason is concern that an item will fall off and its owner will carry it, some say it is prohibited in a karmelit too. The rule depends on the reason. Where the concern is that it looks as if the animal is being led to market, it is certainly prohibited even in a mavoi (alleyway). It is also prohibited on Yom Tov (festival), because although carrying is not prohibited on Yom Tov in the same way, selling is prohibited.
We have to get through the next seventeen halachot in the Shulchan Aruch. The next siman, 18, is a different subject. We have to understand the practical ruling about pets: can a dog go out with a collar, and can someone walk a dog on Shabbat with a leash? We have seen that the leash must be held in a particular way. We also have to discuss dog tags and shoes or sweaters for dogs.
The Shulchan Aruch begins: “Behemah yotzat bameh shemishtameret bo” (An animal may go out with what protects it). If it is not protected by the item, it is excessive protection and is a load. Anything that is for decoration rather than protection may not be worn. There are no ornaments for animals.
Therefore, a female camel may go out with an iron nose ring. It is an iron ring that pierces the nose and is put through it. Here is the picture: this small nose ring is put in the animal so that the reins can be attached and it can be controlled. It is permitted because it needs it.
A Libyan donkey goes out with an iron bit. A camel goes out with a halter, called a kabistro. A mule, donkey, and horse go out with a halter or a bridle called a prinio, but not with both. One may wrap the halter rope around the animal’s neck and take it out that way. One may handle the halter and put it on the animal on Shabbat, since it needs it, but one may not lean on the animal. One may not use an animal on Shabbat.
If a rope is tied in a horse’s mouth, it is a load because it is not secure. The horse does not need it, and it will fall out. If an ordinary donkey is taken out with a prumbiya, it is prohibited because the metal bit is excessive protection. The ruling follows each individual animal, not the species. Even if the rest of its species does not need that protection, this animal may go out with it if it needs it.
Animals that wear collars, such as hunting dogs and small animals with a band around the neck and a ring fixed to it for a leash, may go out with the collar around their necks, and people may pull them by it. The Mishnah Berurah says that a cat may not go out this way, because cats do not usually go with a leash. The collar is the ring around the neck into which the leash is inserted. We will have to see whether this applies to ordinary dogs. The text speaks about hunting dogs. In some places, it may also be illegal for a dog to walk without a leash.
Rams go out with coverings under their private parts so they will not mate with the females. Ewes go out with their tails raised so that the males can mate with them. They go out with coverings that protect their wool and keep it clean. Goats go out with their udders tied. It depends on how and why they are tied. If they are tied so the milk will dry up and the animal will get fatter, they are tied tightly and are not likely to fall. If the purpose is to keep the milk from falling on the ground, they are tied loosely; it is prohibited because they may fall and be carried.
Why is the covering for the male animal not a load? It makes the animal stronger. If the animal had understanding, it would want the item to be there. A donkey may go out with a marda'at, a small saddle blanket placed on it throughout the day to keep it warm, provided it was tied to the donkey before Shabbat. Other animals may not go out with it because they do not need it. A donkey may not go out with an ordinary saddle, even if it is tied to it.
One may place a marda'at on a donkey to protect it from the cold, provided one does not tie it on. Tying it requires getting close and leaning on the animal. A horse does not need a blanket, and it is prohibited to remove a blanket from it because it has no suffering that requires removal. Leaving it on is no trouble; removing it is unnecessary effort.
One may not hang a basket around a donkey’s neck. It is a vessel made of peeled willow, covered with leather and hung around its neck, so that the animal can eat from it. It is not needed; let the animal eat from the ground. But young donkeys and foals with short necks, who suffer when eating from the ground, may have a small basket hung on them in the yard. They may not go out with it, because it is a load.
A horse may not go out with a fox’s tail hung between its eyes to protect it from the evil eye, or with a red thread used for decoration. Goats may not go out with pouches tied over their udders to keep them from being scratched. A cow may not go out with a muzzle, used to prevent it from grazing in other people’s fields. An animal may not go out with shoes put on its legs to prevent injury, though the Mishnah Berurah says this does not refer to horseshoes made of metal, which will not fall off.
An animal may go out with a bandage over a wound and with splints around a broken bone. It may also go out with part of the afterbirth that has emerged and is still attached. A bell on its neck may be plugged so it can walk with it in the yard, but it may not go out with it into the public domain, even if the bell is plugged, because it looks as though the animal is being led to market. The same applies whether the bell is on its neck or on its garment. If it is not tied to the animal, it is a load. If it is not plugged, it is prohibited even in the yard because it makes a sound.
The Mishnah Berurah says that the concern about looking as if the animal is being led to market applies where that is the usual practice. For animals that are not customarily taken to market with bells, it may be permitted to plug the bell. But it might still be prohibited because it is a load. That distinction matters: if the only issue is carrying, a private domain may be permitted; if it looks as though the animal is being led to market, even a private place may be problematic.
The Mishnah Berurah says that all these things that are prohibited in the public domain because they are loads are permitted in a yard, even one without an eruv. Regarding a karmelit, some later authorities are stringent. As for our public domains, one should certainly be careful, because there is a possible Torah prohibition, as explained in Vi'ur Halachah. Where the concern is that the item might fall and its owner might carry it, even those who permit other things in a karmelit agree that this is prohibited there. Where the reason is that it looks as though the animal is being led to market, it is prohibited even in an alleyway without an eruv. The reason for each ruling matters. The bell also makes a sound, which is another issue.
An animal may not go out with a seal, whether it is on its neck or its garment. The seal is for identification and is not needed for the animal. The question is whether a dog’s identification tag is similarly prohibited. The tag is for identification, not for the animal’s benefit, so it may be a load. We will have to look into that.
A camel may not go out with a small pillow under its tail unless it is tied both to the tail and the hump; otherwise it may fall and be carried. No animal may go out akud or ragul. Akud means that one hand is tied to one foot; ragul means that one foot is tied upward so the animal cannot walk normally. This is done so it will not run away, and is excessive protection.
One may not tie camels one after another while holding the first halter, because it looks as though they are being led to market. Some permit holding several halters in one hand, while others prohibit that too. Some say the only permitted case is taking one animal by itself. When leading one animal by a rope, less than a tefach may hang below the hand. Otherwise, it looks as if the rope is being carried by itself. One should not leave too much rope between the hand and the animal. If the rope is long, wrap it around the animal’s neck, leaving enough room to fit a hand between the rope and the neck.
A donkey may not go out with a marda'at that was not tied to it before Shabbat. It may not go out with a bell, even if it is plugged, or with a ladder-like device tied around its neck to keep it from rubbing a wound. A bandage is different because it is important, and the concern is that it might fall off. A strap or covering around the legs may also fall and be carried. Chickens may not go out with strings tied around their legs as signs, or with straps tied around their legs to stop them from breaking vessels. If the straps are to keep a chicken from running away, it is permitted.
Rams may not go out with a small cart under their tails to keep the tails from dragging on the ground. The Yerushalmi explains that the cart digs into the ground. Goats may not go out with wood put in their noses to make them sneeze and dislodge worms, because it might fall out and be carried. A calf may not go out with a small yoke around its neck or with something in its nose to prevent nursing. A cow may not go out with leather over its udders to prevent creatures from nursing. A strap between the horns is prohibited whether for protection or decoration. A cow or ox may not go out with a rope around the neck if it does not need protection. Calves may go out with it because they can be unruly and need protection.
An animal may go out with an amulet known to work for animals, but not with one known to work for people, even if it is known to work for a person. Rashi explains that, as Rashi says in Bava Kamma, a person has mazal and an angel advocating for him from above; his mazal helps the amulet work for him. That is not the case with an animal.
Let’s look in Yalkut Yosef briefly. There is a section on milking a cow, but that is not what we are looking for now. The question is about carrying on Shabbat. It discusses soldiers whose security duties require them to wear a necklace with their dog tag, even where there is no eruv. That is a soldier who needs the tag for security and identification.
There is also a ruling about a blind person accustomed to walking with a dog: it is permitted to take the dog into the public domain on Shabbat and hold the leash attached to it. But he may not go out with a cane in the public domain. Why is the ruling specifically about a blind person? The text says a blind person who walks with a seeing-eye dog may take the dog out and hold its leash. It is not clear from this discussion why it would not apply to anyone else. We should see what the halachah says about walking a dog with a leash.
Could we look in Shemirat Shabbat Kehilchatah? There is also the question of a retractable leash: is the handle part of the leash, or is it a separate item? If it is part of the leash, perhaps it is simply the leash; but we will have to check. And what about the tag attached to the dog? The law requires the dog to have identification. The question is whether that is carrying on Shabbat. If one relies on an eruv, that may remove the concern about carrying, but the other issues still need to be considered.
Look at it for sure what it will say.