Daf 153
1) If someone's going on his way on Erev Shabbos and it's getting dark, he gives his wallet to his non-Jewish companion to carry for him. After all, if we prevent him from asking this non-Jew to carry it for him, he'll come to carry it himself and carry it four Amos in a Reshus Harabim. However, it must be his own wallet, and not one that he just found on the way. However, that's only if he didn't find it and take it on Friday, but if he owned it on Friday, it's already his wallet and he may give it to the non-Jew. Another version is: it's an unresolved inquiry whether this found wallet that he took on Friday is considered his in order to tell the non-Jew to carry it, since it became his, or not, since he didn't toil for it.
2) It's better to give it to the non-Jew than to have your donkey carry it since you're commanded to have your donkey rest, but you're not commanded to have the non-Jew rest. However, if you don't have a non-Jewish companion, you put it on your donkey to carry.
3) If you don't have a donkey, then you can give it to a deaf-mute or an insane or minor person. It's better to put it on your donkey that's a non-human than to give it to one of these humans.
4) If you have a choice between a deaf-mute or a minor or the insane, you give it to the insane to carry. If it's between a deaf-mute and a minor, according to R' Eliezer who holds that it's a Safeik if a deaf-mute is obligated in Mitzvos or not, you definitely give it to the minor who is definitely not obligated in Mitzvos. According to the Rabanan who hold that a deaf-mute is definitely exempt from Mitzvos, then, some say that it's better to give it to the deaf-mute since the minor will eventually be a responsible mature adult, and some say to give it to the minor since the deaf-mute may be confused with a regular adult. [Tosfos asks; if so, then why do we say that you give it to the insane instead of the minor? After all, you might confuse the insane with a regular adult. Another question: our Gemara seems to Paskin like the Rabanan, and the Gemara in Yevamos seems to Paskin like R' Eliezer.]
5) If you have no one else with you, and no donkey, you may carry it yourself less than four Amos at a time.
6) That, which we allow to give it to a donkey to carry even though this is a Lav of leading an animal in doing a Melacha; we must say that the animal is not doing a full Melacha. Therefore, you place it on the donkey when it starts to walk, and remove it after he stops walking. In this way, the donkey never does the Akira, uprooting, of the wallet. [Tosfos adds: this is also necessary when you give it to a minor, since you're not allowed to have a minor do a Melacha for his father.] However, you can't allow an adult to do this, even though he's not Chayiv in this case. After all, anything that you would be Chayiv if you do it completely yourself, it's rabbinically forbidden when do jointly with another human. When it's only rabbinically forbidden to do it with another human, it's permitted by an animal.
7) If you're walking home Erev Shabbos with a bundle on your shoulder, and it's turning dark, you may run home with the package, and you wouldn't be doing a full Melacha on Shabbos since you made the Akira before Shabbos. However, you can't walk slowly, since there is nothing recognizable in your walking that you need to keep constantly going, you might inadvertently stop, and you'll be making a new Akira on Shabbos.
8) When you come to your house and you'll need to stop to open the door, and that would be like a Hanacha, a resting of the bundle, and if you'll carry it inside, it would be a new Akira and would be the Melacha of carrying the bundle from a Reshus Harabim to a Reshus Hayachid; you need to throw it inside in a strange matter so that it shouldn't be a Torah prohibition. [Tosfos asks: why doesn't the Gemara say this condition of throwing it in a strange way when it gave the Heter of carrying the wallet less than four Amos at a time?]
9) Rama b. Chama says in the first version: if you forget and lead an animal in Melacha on Shabbos, you're Chayiv a Chatos, and if done purposely, you get stoned. However, Rava says that you're not Chayiv Chatos. After all, we have a Hekish between Chatos and idolatry, so you're only Chayiv Chatos when it's done like idolatry, that you do the prohibition with your own body, but not with an animal's body. However, if you purposely lead the animal, you're punishable through stoning. This is also Rama b. Chama's opinion in his second version. However R' Yochanan says that he's exempt from everything.
Daf 154
10) Not only does R' Yochanan hold that you don't get stoned for it, but you don't even get Malkos, (which you usually get for any Lav). This is because it's part of a Lav that warns against getting killed, so it's not warning against getting Malkos. He even holds that he's exempt even according to the opinion that you can get Malkos on a Lav that's a warning against getting killed. This is because the Pasuk says an extra 'you' (i.e., "don't do Melacha, you etc. and your animals.") So, it's there to separate the Lav of "don't do Melacha" and "and your animals" to say that you can't get Malkos for that Lav for leading your animals.
11) [Tosfos asks: we see that disproved witnesses get Malkos when it's impossible to get the death penalty, like when they weren't disproved that there was a murder through other witnesses testifying they were somewhere else, but they were disproved when the supposed victim showed up, (according to the opinion that they can't get executed anymore even after other witnesses testify against them). Although the Lav was given for the death penalty, we have a special Pasuk "you hit the wicked" to teach us that you always give Malkos when a technicality stops you from getting "what you planned." Alternatively, the Lav is not specifically on executing, but on all the punishments given on that Lav, (which is sometimes Malkos, and payments). Therefore, it's as if there is a special Lav for when he should receive Malkos. This is not like doing Melacha on Shabbos that the Lav is mainly on the human doing Melacha, as the Pasuk there says that anyone who does it is executed, which is only when humans do Melacha. Alternatively, Shabbos is different since it doesn't write "Don't do Melacha" in the plural (but in the singler) to say that it's not going on all that's written there, so it doesn't go on "animal." Tosfos concludes; the first answer is the best.]
12) If you have your donkey carrying a load, when you get to your courtyard, you remove all non-Muktza items from the back. If you have Muktza glass utensils, like tubes that the blood-letters let blood through, (which is Muktza since it's very disgusting and it's not fit for any other job), you take pillows and blankets and place it below the animal and then untie the ropes and let the packages fall on top of them. However, this is only by smaller packages that you're able to pull the pillow and blankets from under them. However, if they're too big and you wouldn't be able to slip the blankets from underneath them, you'll be making the blankets Muktza for the whole Shabbos, which is prohibited. If you have big panes of glass, you can't bring the pillows and blankets since it will only be a small loss, since you can use the larger broken pieces, and you'll only lose the glass that will be shattered.
13) The Gemara's conclusion about using trees and animals on Shabbos: it's forbidden to use the sides of a tree or an animal on Shabbos. However, you may use something that's on the side of the side of the animal. When we allowed you to drop the donkey's burden, it's only in a way where it's attached with "a side of the side' (like if it's hung on loops). Therefore, you can't entertain a child by rubbing him against the side of an animal. Also, you can't climb a ladder that's leaning on a tree, since this is considered using the side of the tree. However, you can climb a ladder that's leaning on pegs that are sticking out of a tree. When you climb, you can't place your foot on the pegs to lift yourself up, since it's standing on the "side' of the tree, but you may only place your foot on the ladder's rungs since it's "the side of the side."
Daf 155
14) R' Huna says: you may make edible fodder better on Shabbos, but you can't make inedible fodder fit to be edible. Therefore, you may untie bundles of hay before an animal and spread it out (so that it would be easier to eat) since it's edible without spreading it out. However, it's forbidden to spread out shoots since they're not edible until you spread it out.
15) However, R' Yehuda says that you can make inedible items into fodder, but you can't make edible items better to make them easier to eat. Therefore, you can untie the shoots and spread them out, but you may only untie hay, but not spread them out. Since it's anyhow edible, you can't toil to make it better. The Gemara remains with a question on R' Huna's explanation. [Rashi explains: R' Huna and R' Yehuda also argue whether untying is toiling to make it fodder or if it just makes it easier to eat. Therefore, everyone allows him to untie. However, Tosfos feels it's forced to say that they also argue with this side argument. Rather, Tosfos explains; untying the bundle is not considered as toiling to better the fodder or making it into fodder, since it's not much toiling. So, you can untie either one, both to R' Huna and to R' Yehuda.]
16) You cannot stuff a camel so much as to make a trough in its stomach. You can't stuff it even if it's not to the point that it's making a trough in its stomach, (but close to it). You can't 'Mamer' a calf, but you may 'Malit' it. (We'll explain.)
17) R' Yehuda says Mamir is forcing the fodder to a place in the throat in which the animal can't regurgitate it, and Malitin is to a place where it could regurgitate it. R' Chisda says that both are to a place that can't be regurgitated; Mamir is done with a utensil and Malitin is with your hand. We have a Braisa like R' Yehuda.
18) Even though we permit to force-feed the calf where it can regurgitate it, we don't allow this by doves of the dove coops and those who nests in second floors. It's even forbidden to place before them food since it's not upon you to feed them since they can forage for themselves in the wild. The Gemara concludes that you only can't put water in front of them since they can get it in the swamps.
19) Therefore, since it's upon you to feed your dogs, you may feed them on Shabbos. However, since it's not upon you to feed pigs, (since they decreed that you're not allowed to raise them), you can't feed them on Shabbos.
20) Rebbi says: if one person puts the flour in a bowl and the second one pours the water, the second one is Chayiv. R' Yossi b. Yehuda holds that they're not Chayiv until they knead the dough.
21) R' Yossi b. Yehuda says that you're permitted to put water on bran even though you can't really knead it [Tosfos: i.e., as well as you can knead flour, but it's somewhat able to be kneaded], (and we don't say that, therefore, the water pouring becomes the kneading).The same applies to flour from roasted grains. You can also mix it if you make a change from the regular way that you knead, like mixing a little at a time.
Daf 156
22) However, everyone agrees that you may mix the food 'Shashis' if it's a loose batter, but not if it's a thick batter. Even with a loose batter, you need to change the way it's mixed. If you usually put in the vinegar first and then the the 'Shashis,' you should first put in the Shashis and then the vinegar. Abaya says that the change would be that you mix it with an up and down movement, and a right and left movements, (but not mixing it round and round). Although it won't be nicely mixed, you may supplement it by pouring it from one utensil to another until it's fully mixed.
23) R' Chiya allows doing 'Parak' [Rashi explains: bringing the food from one animal to another. Tosfos argues since a Mishna already discussed this earlier. Rather, it means that you mix a batter by pouring it from utensil to utensil.]
24) R' Shimon permits cutting up a Neveila animal before dogs. R' Yehuda forbids it unless it was a Neveila from before Shabbos, since it wasn't prepared for this. [Tosfos is bothered: how can the Gemara infer from here that R' Yehuda regularly forbids all types of Muktza if this is only a specific type of Muktza? After all, since there is a prohibition to kill this animal on Shabbos, maybe R' Yehuda only holds of Muktza because of an Issur, but not if you just set it aside for a different purpose. Tosfos answers: the Gemara infers from the extra words "since it wasn't prepared for this" to include anything that wasn't prepared for use. Alternatively, since we can also refer to small fowl that you can give to a dog to eat before it dies; yet, since it's not prepared for dogs, but only for humans, therefore, it's Muktza.]
25) Rav, Ullah and Levi hold that the Halacha is like R' Yehuda. Shmuel, Zeiri and R' Yochanan hold that the Halacha is like R' Shimon, [Tosfos explains; even regarding that, if it's Muktza Bein Hashmashes, it's not Muktza for the whole Shabbos. Although we say that the above Mishna refers to small birds that are fit to give to dogs when they're alive, and therefore it's not Muktza (despite that you can't move live animals) just like fallen fruit of a tree is not considered Muktza, (and thus the rabbis needed to enact a new decree to forbid it since you might come to climb up and pluck the fruit from the tree), since it's fit on the trees for the pet ravens (despite not being able to move it when it was attached to the tree), so we don't see from that that R' Shimon allows something that doesn't have any use; still, the Mishna also refers to big animals that you can't feed to a dog while it's alive, and R' Shimon still permits the Neveila despite being totally unusable Bein Hashmashes.]
Daf 157
26) Raveina and R' Acha argue. One holds that the Halacha is like R' Shimon in all Shabbos Halachos except for something that is Muktza since it's too disgusting. The other holds that the Halacha is like him in that case too, but we only don't Paskin like him in something being Muktza because of Issur (that there is a prohibition stopping you to use it, like oil in a lamp) [Tosfos: at least when you pushed it away with your hands, i.e., you lit the lamp to make it unusable.]
27) R' Shimon agrees that something that's Muktza because you're afraid to use it for any other use since it might get broken is forbidden
28) You may request from a Chachum to uproot one of your Nedarim (oaths)on Shabbos if it's needed for Shabbos, even if you could have requested it on Friday.
29) A husband may null the oaths of his wife, or daughters, on Shabbos. The Gemara inquires whether this applies to oaths that are needed to be uprooted for Shabbos, or even those that are not needed for Shabbos. The Gemara brings a Braisa that it's only if it's needed for Shabbos. In the second version, the Gemara says that it depends if you can null oaths until nightfall, (and if you don't do it on Shabbos, you won't be able to null it ever again), or you can null it for a twenty-four hour period, (and if you don't null it on Shabbos, there is still time to null it after Shabbos).
30) You may stuff up a window on Shabbos, you may measure for a Mitzva, and you may L'chatchila tie a temporary knot.
31) Therefore, regarding the story with a Yalkita Katana [Rashi: a small path] between two houses that had a corpse there, and there was a cracked barrel above the path (so, the path was covered by the barrel with the cracked middle open to the sky). The corpse was between the area of the crack (and was directly under the sky). The houses had windows that are open to the path the size of a 'fist' (of a gigantic person, which is the amount that Tumah would enter). Therefore, if the crack in between the barrels would be less than a Tefach, we consider it as if it's one roof and the Tumah will spread over the whole path and through the windows. Therefore, we allow stuffing up the window with a pitcher before he dies in order to prevent the Tumah from coming in just in case there is no Tefach. You're also allowed to measure if it is a Tefach by tying a Gemmi grass on a Tefach-wide utensil, (but not a rope, since you might leave it there and it would be a permanent knot), and lower it between the cracks to see if it fits, and we'll know that the crack is a Tefach wide.
32) [However, Tosfos argues. After all if the dead body is under the sky (and not the overhang), even if it's not a Tefach wide, the Tumah will rise out and won't spread. Rather, Tosfos says; we have two houses that's completely open to each other. To separate between them, there was a mound. On top of the mound (to finish blocking it off), there was this barrel that was left there indefinitely. Therefore, if there was a corpse in one house, the barrel will protect the other house from having the Tumah spread into it. if that barrel has a crack in it, then it only protects if it's not a Tefach wide. (We must say that crack was made on purpose so that people can use that space, or else the Shiur is more than a Tefach.) Therefore, you need to measure that crack.]
33) You can measure a barrel of water if you're just fidgeting without needing to measure anything.