Daf Ditty Eruvin 79: Haystack

MONET, Claude
France 1840 – 1926

Meules, milieu du jour

Long revered as Monet’s most exquisite series, the Haystack paintings are remarkable for the
range of light and weather conditions portrayed. In Haystacks, midday the edges of the stacks
shimmer in the heat, and sunlight appears to radiate from the structures themselves.

Elsewhere, in the snow scenes, the forms seem to absorb light. The practical nature of the stacks
– a means of storing the harvest – receives less attention. When the sheaves of wheat or oats were
cut, the cereal stacks were thatched with straw and left to stand until spring, and the arrival of the
threshing machines that moved between villages.

For a country still smarting from the effects of the Franco–Prussian war – and in a period when
France seemed to be rapidly overtaken by industrialized Britain, Germany, the United States or
even Russia – Monet’s choice of motif, like the series of poplar paintings that followed, was
reassuringly French. The haystacks resonate with notions of rural productivity and the relative
harmony of country life.1

1
https://nga.gov.au/exhibition/turnertomonet/detail.cfm?IRN=29073

1
 “Make hay while the sun shines.”

This idiom is very old, dating back to Medieval times. Rain would often ruin the
process of making hay. So, farmers had no choice but to make hay when the sun
was shining.

Today, we all use this expression, not just farmers. When conditions are perfect to
get something done, we can say, “It’s a good idea to make hay while the sun
shines.”

In other words, you are taking advantage of a good situation or of good

conditions. You are making the most of your opportunities.

These all mean “making hay while the sun shines.”

2
JASTROW

3
MISHNA: With regard to a haystack that is positioned between two courtyards and is ten
handbreadths high, it has the status of a partition, and therefore the residents of the courtyards
may establish two eiruvin, and they may not establish one eiruv. These, the inhabitants of one
courtyard, may feed their animals from here, from one side of the haystack, and those, the
inhabitants of the other courtyard, may feed their animals from there, from the other side of the
haystack. There is no concern that the haystack might become too small to serve as a partition. If
the height of the hay was reduced to less than ten handbreadths across its entire length, its legal

4
status is no longer that of a partition. Consequently, the residents of both courtyards establish one
eiruv, and they do not establish two eiruvin.

If there is a 10 ‫ טפח‬high haystack that separates two ‫ חצירות‬, they have to make .‫ עירובין‬separate
Residents of both ‫ חצירות‬may feed their animals from the haystack, and we need not be concerned
that it will become lower than 10 ‫ טפחים‬,because the animals do not eat that much in one day.
However, if it was less than ten ‫ טפחים‬before ‫שבת‬, they have to make one ‫ עירוב‬together, because
they are now one.

5
GEMARA:

With regard to the Mishna’s statement that the inhabitants of the two courtyards are permitted to
place their animals next to the haystack and feed them, Rav Huna said: And this is the halakha
provided that one does not actually put hay into his basket and feed his animals.

In that case, there is concern that one might inadvertently reduce the height of the partition to less
than ten handbreadths, which would constitute a breach between the courtyards and invalidate both
eiruvin.

6
Rav Huna says that when feeding the animals from the haystack the owner may not put some into
his basket - or even lead the animal directly to the haystack to eat from it - either because he might
take too much and reduce the height of the ‫ מחיצה‬,or because the straw is ‫ מוקצה‬. When the Mishnah
said ‫ מאכילין‬it meant he may allow it to eat - or even block other paths so that the animal will go to
the haystack by itself.

7
The Gemara asks:

And if the actual handling of the hay is prohibited, is it permitted to stand one’s animal next to
the haystack and let it eat?

Didn’t Rav Huna say that Rabbi Ḥanina said: A person may stand his animal on a patch of
grass on Shabbat, as he will certainly be careful not to pull out grass for the animal, due to the
severity of the Torah prohibition involved.

However, a person may not stand his animal on set-aside items on Shabbat. As the prohibition
of set-aside is rabbinic in origin, he might forget and move the set-aside objects himself. The same
reasoning should apply in the case of the haystack.

If it is prohibited by rabbinic decree to remove hay from the stack manually, it should likewise be
prohibited to position one’s animal alongside the stack.

The Gemara answers:

The mishna is not referring to a case where one directly brings the animal and places it alongside
the haystack.

Rather, it is dealing with a situation where one stands in front of the animal so that it cannot go
elsewhere, and it goes and eats from the haystack of its own accord.

In that case, the rabbinic decree does not apply.

8
.

The Gemara asks a question with regard to Rav Huna’s statement itself: And may one not put
hay into his basket and feed his animal?

Wasn’t it taught in a baraita: In the case of a house that is positioned between two courtyards
and the residents filled it with hay, they establish two eiruvin, but they do not establish one
eiruv, as the hay is considered a partition that divides the house.

The resident of this courtyard puts hay into his basket and feeds his animal, and the resident of
that courtyard puts hay into his basket and feeds his animal.

9
If the hay was reduced to a height less than ten handbreadths, it is prohibited for residents of
both to carry in their respective courtyards.

How, then, does the resident of one of the courtyards acts if he seeks to permit use of the other
courtyard to its resident?

10
He locks his house and renounces his right to carry in the courtyard in favor of the other person.
Consequently, it is prohibited for him to carry from his house into the courtyard, and it is
permitted for the other resident to do so

And you say likewise with regard to a pit [gov] of hay that is positioned between two Shabbat
limits.

The residents of each area may feed their animals from the common hay, as there is no concern
lest the animals go beyond the limit.

In any case, the baraita teaches: The resident of this courtyard puts hay into his basket and
feeds his animal, and the resident of that courtyard puts hay into his basket and feeds his animal.
This halakha poses a difficulty to Rav Huna’s opinion.

Halacha Orach Chayim 324:13

11
Rav Avrohom Adler writes:2

The Mishna describes how to perform a shituf mevo’os.

How does one take part in a shituf mevo’os (enabling all of the people who live in the surrounding
courtyards to carry into the alleyway that they share)?

He places the barrel (containing the wine in one of the courtyards) and says that this is for all of
the people who share the mavoi, and has them acquire their portion through his older son and
daughter, or through his Jewish servant or maidservant, or through his wife.

He may not have them acquire their portion through his minor son or daughter, or through his
Canaanite slave or slave woman, because their hand is like his hand.

The barrel must be picked up one tefach off the ground. In order for the acquisition to be valid, the
barrel must be picked up at least one tefach off of the ground. Otherwise, the food is considered to
still be in his domain. [Of course, this is assuming that it is his food that he is giving to the people
of the mavoi. If everyone gave their own food, this is not necessary.]

Raba observed: These two rulings were given by the elders of Pumbedisa: One is the ruling just
cited. The other is the following: He who recites the Kiddush has fulfilled his obligation if he tastes
a mouthful; otherwise, he does not.

Rav Chaviva observed: The following ruling also was given by the elders of Pumbedisa, for Rav
Yehudah stated in the name of Shmuel that one may light a bonfire on Shabbos for a woman in
labor.

The students assumed that this is only for a woman in labor, and not for any other sick person, and
only in the winter, but not in the summer, but the Gemora states that it applies equally to someone
sick, and even in the summer.

It was stated: Rabbi Chiya bar Avin citing Shmuel ruled: If a person let blood and felt chilly, a fire
may be kindled for him on the Shabbos, even during the hottest period of the year. Ameimar
observed: The following ruling also was given by the elders of Pumbedisa, for it was stated: How
is an asheirah which is not specified as such to be recognized?

Rav said: Any tree where pagan priests sit beneath it but do not partake of its fruits.

Shmuel said: Even if the priests beneath it say, “These dates are for the temple of Natzrefei, the
tree is prohibited because they make beer from them which they drink on their idolatrous holidays.
Ameimar said: The elders of Pumbedisa told me that the halachah is in agreement with Shmuel.

This Gemora seems to contradict Rashi’s opinion in Kidushin (26a, DH “b’chavilei zemoros”).

2
http://dafnotes.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/Eiruvin_79.pdf

12
Rashi says there that an acquisition through picking something up must be done by picking it up
three tefachim off the ground.

Rashi there explains that being that there is a principle of “lavud” which loosely means that when
things are less than three tefachim apart they are somewhat connected, one must pick an item up
three tefachim to disconnect it from its former domain.

If that is true, how can our Gemora say that one tefach is good enough?

Tosfos and others here answer for Rashi that although three tefachim are generally required, being
that this is only a Rabbinic law one tefach is good enough.

The Meiri here quotes an opinion that argues on Rashi’s opinion in Kidushin, and states that all
acquisitions through picking up only require that the item be picked up one tefach off the ground.
This is indeed the opinion of Rabbeinu Tam in Tosfos in Kidushin (ibid.).

Indeed, our daf is cited by the Ramban in Kidushin (ibid.) as Rabbeinu Tam’s proof that acquiring
through picking up can be done by picking up the item even one tefach off the ground.

Feeding animals from the haystack

R’ Huna rules that one may not take straw from the haystack and feed it to his animals. The
Gemara questions the permissibility of leading the animal to the haystack out of fear that the owner
may handle the straw which is muktzeh. The Gemara answers that in fact he may not physically
lead the animal to the haystack rather he may stand in front of it so the animal will go on its own.
R’ Huna’s ruling is unsuccessfully challenged from a Baraisa.

A HAYSTACK BETWEEN TWO CITIES

Rav Mordechai Kornfeld writes:3

Our Daf states that when there is a pile of hay between the two Techumei Shabbos of two different
cities, the residents of each city may feed their animals with hay from their respective side of the
haystack.

We are not concerned that the residents of one city will take hay from within the other city's
Techum, even according to Rebbi Akiva who holds that the law of Techumin is mid'Oraisa.

Even though one might transgress an Isur d'Oraisa by taking hay from within the other Techum
into one's own Techum (RASHI DH Mahu d'Teima), the Rabanan were not concerned that this
would happen and did not prohibit taking hay from the side of one's own Techum.

3
https://www.dafyomi.co.il/eruvin/insites/ev-dt-079.htm

13
MINCHAS CHINUCH (#24) wonders whether according to Rebbi Akiva, who holds that the law
of Techumin is mid'Oraisa, the law of Techumei Kelim (i.e., that an object may not be moved out
of the Techum of its owner even by another person) is also mid'Oraisa.

The Minchas Chinuch points out that we may prove from the Gemara here that there is indeed a
Techum d'Oraisa for objects. If the Techum for objects is not mid'Oraisa, then why does the
Gemara say that we might have thought that Rebbi Akiva would prohibit using the hay lest one
take hay out of its Techum? There would be no Isur d'Oraisa to take the hay out of its Techum,
and thus no reason to make such a Gezeira! It must be that the Techum of objects is indeed
mid'Oraisa.

It could be, however, that the Gemara here is not a proof that Techumei Kelim is mid'Oraisa. The
Gemara says only that the hay is between two Techumin (i.e., between the Techumin of the
residents of two cities).

It does not say that the hay is at the end of its own Techum (that is, perhaps the hay's own Techum
extends beyond this point towards the second city). However, if the hay is not at the end of its own
Techum, then why may one not take hay from the other side of the haystack?

RITVA explains that the Gemara is concerned that the person feeding his animal will walk to the
other side of the haystack to take hay, and by doing so he will be walking out of his own Techum.
This is what Rashi means when he says that "one might take from a Techum that is not his." The
Gemara is not discussing the Techum of objects at all.

Although there is no definite proof from the Gemara here, the YAD BINYAMIN points out that
the RAMBAN (17b) indeed states, as the Minchas Chinuch asserts, that the Techum of Kelim is
mid'Oraisa.4

Steinzaltz (OBM) writes:5

We have already learned that a mavoy (alleyway) is the area into which a number of courtyards
open, which allows access to the reshut ha-rabim – the public domain.

Carrying in a mavoy will be permitted on Shabbat if a symbolic board (a lehi or a kora) is placed
at the entrance to the reshut ha-rabim, and if all of the residents have shared ownership of food,
which figuratively joins them together.

If someone wants to ensure that he will be able to carry in a mavoy without entering into
negotiations with his neighbors, the Mishna on our daf teaches that he can take a barrel of food
that belongs to him and announce "this is [for the eiruv] for all the residents of the alleyway."

4
See also BI'UR HALACHAH OC 340, DH l'Man d'Amar.
5
https://www.steinsaltz-center.org/home/doc.aspx?mCatID=68446

14
This arrangement works by virtue of the rule zakhin l'adam shelo befanav – that even without
someone's knowledge, another person can engage in activities that benefit him.

The Mishna teaches that another person needs to play the role of the agent who is acting on behalf
of those people who are not aware that the transaction is being done for them.

This agent can even be the adult children of the person who is making the eiruv, or his wife or his
Jewish slaves. These rules are not unique to eiruv.

In fact all of the normal rules of zakhin – of acting on behalf of someone else as their agent – need
to be followed, the most basic of which is that one person cannot do it on his own; he needs another
person to play the role of the "purchaser."

An interesting disagreement turns up regarding who can act as the agent. Although the Gemara
permits someone's adult children or his wife to play that role, some commentaries argue that if
family members are supported by the head of the household, according to the halakha all of their
income automatically belongs to the father.

In that case, perhaps they should be viewed as agents of the father and cannot represent the other
side in what is, in essence, a financial matter.

Rav Huna in the name of R’ Chanina rules that it is acceptable for an animal to perform a melachah
on Shabbos as long as the animal does it for its own needs6. Allowing an animal to do so is not
prohibited in the category of mechamer.

For this reason, it is permitted to bring an animal to a pasture even though one knows that the
animal will pull out grass from the ground as it eats.

‫תוספות ד"ה מעמיד‬

Tosfos (Shabbos 122b) cites the source for the Gemara's statement that one can allow his animal
to stand on grass, even though he will clearly uproot it.

‫כדדרשי' במכילתין למען ינוח שורך וחמורך וגו' יכול לא יניחנו תולש לא יניחנו עוקר ת"ל למען ינוח ואין זה‬
‫ ר"ת‬.‫נוח אלא צער‬

This is based on the derivation in the Mechilta, "In order that your ox and donkey will rest etc."

6
https://www.dafdigest.org/masechtos/Eruvin%20079.pdf

15
One might think this verse means you should not allow your animal to pick or uproot things
growing from the ground. This is why the verse says, "In order that he should rest" and preventing
him from doing so would not be rest but rather pain." [Rabbeinu Tam.]

Tosafos above, explains that the rationale for the leniency is that if this were not permitted the
animal would not experience menuchah, it would suffer and the Torah states that animals should
rest on Shabbos.

Orach Chayim 324:13

This halachah is codified in Shulchan Aruch above, as well. Poskim discuss whether it is permitted
to allow an animal to perform a melachah if a person also benefits from that melachah.

16
Magen Avrohom discusses whether it is permitted to place a
leech on one’s body for medicinal purposes.

Sanhedrin 76b

If one pushed another into the water or into the fire and that person could have extricated himself
from there but failed to do so, and he died, the one who pushed him is exempt from punishment
by a court, as he caused the death but did not actually kill the victim. For the same reason, if one
set a dog against another and the dog killed him, or if one set a snake against another and the
snake killed him, the one who set the dog, or the snake is exempt from punishment. If he imbedded
the snake’s fangs into another and caused the snake to bite him and kill him, Rabbi Yehuda deems
him liable to be executed, as he is a murderer, and the Rabbis exempt him, as they maintain that
he indirectly caused the individual’s death.

He cites a Gemara above, regarding liability of a person who causes a snake to bite a person and
that person dies. According to Rashi, below, what emerges from that Gemara is that if the animal
acts immediately after placed down by a person, it is considered as though the person himself
inflicted the wound and he could be sentenced to death for putting the snake on the person.

RASHI

Accordingly, since a leech begins to suck out blood as soon as it is placed on a person it is
considered as though the person is the one who did the melachah and it is prohibited.

Even HaOzer questions why placement of the leech on a person is any different from our daf that
permits bringing an animal to a pasture to eat.

He answers that when it comes to damages the main issue is whether it is inevitable that damage
will occur (‫)הזיקו ברי‬. Regarding Shabbos the criteria is whether the act constitutes meleches
machsheves or not.

17
When one brings his animal to a pasture his intent is not to do melachah; his intent is that the
animal should eat. Since he is not doing anything or directly benefitting from what the animal does
it is permitted. In the case of the leech since the person’s intent is to benefit from the melachah
that will be done it is prohibited.

The History of Hay

Late 19th century hay boat with small square bales

Haymaking has been a chore for the farmer almost as long as there have been farmers. And while
today’s modern machinery and weather prognostication allows for much simpler and faster
haymaking, that wasn’t always the case.
In the 17th and 18th centuries, haymaking was a very cumbersome task with little output because
the act of actually harvesting the hay was a process that relied solely on the hands of the farmer,
or, if lucky, crude tools. Eventually, seeds were introduced from abroad that allowed hay to be
made in greater quantities.

Around the year 1790, hay production finally saw a major spike due to the introduction of new
machinery that was created during the Industrial Revolution. The main innovation that helped the
hay business was the wooden rake. Now haymaking was not reliant on hands.

18
Early methods
Early farmers noticed that growing fields produced more fodder in the spring than the animals
could consume, and that cutting the grass in the summer, allowing it to dry and storing it for the
winter provided their domesticated animals with better quality nutrition than simply allowing them
to dig through snow in the winter to find dried grass. Therefore, some fields were "shut up" for
hay.

Haymakers, from the Grimani Breviary, c. 1510.

Up to the end of the 19th century, grass and legumes were not often grown together because crops
were rotated.
However, by the 20th century, good forage management techniques demonstrated that highly
productive pastures were a mix of grasses and legumes, so compromises were made when it was
time to mow.
Later still, some farmers grew crops, like straight alfalfa (lucerne), for special-purpose hay such
as that fed to dairy cattle.

19
 July 1903 - on the Gaisberg, near Salzburg

Much hay was originally cut by scythe by teams of workers, dried in the field and gathered loose
on wagons. Later, haying would be done by horse-drawn implements such as mowers. With the
invention of agricultural machinery such as the tractor and the baler, most hay production
became mechanized by the 1930s.

20
 Haymaking in Wales c. 1885

After hay was cut and had dried, the hay was raked or rowed up by raking it into a linear heap by
hand or with a horse-drawn implement. Turning hay, when needed, originally was done by hand
with a fork or rake. Once the dried hay was rowed up, pitch forks were used to pile it loose,
originally onto a horse-drawn cart or wagon, later onto a truck or tractor-drawn trailer, for which
a sweep could be used instead of pitch forks.

21
 A hay barrack.
The roof is moved up and down as the hay level changes.

Loose hay was taken to an area designated for storage—usually a slightly raised area for
drainage—and built into a haystack. The stack was made waterproof as it was built (a skilled task)
and the hay would compress under its own weight and cure by the release of heat from the residual
moisture in the hay and from the compression forces. The stack was fenced from the rest of the
paddock in a rick yard, and often thatched or sheeted to keep it dry. When needed, slices of hay
would be cut using a hay knife and fed out to animals each day.
On some farms the loose hay was stored in a barrack, shed, or barn, normally in such a way that it
would compress down and cure. Hay could be stored in a specially designed barn with little internal
structure to allow more room for the hay loft. Alternatively, an upper storey of a cow-shed or stable
was used, with hatches in the floor to allow hay to be thrown down into hay-racks below.
Depending on region, the term "hay rick" could refer to the machine for cutting hay, the hay stack
or the wagon used to collect the hay.
Hay baling began with the invention of the first hay press in about 1850.[11] Hay was baled for
easier handling and to reduce space required for storage and shipment. The first bales weighed
about 300 lb. T
he original machines were of the vertical design similar to the one photographed by Greene Co.
Historical Society. They used a horse driven screw press mechanism or a dropped weight to
compress the hay.
The first patent went to HL Emery for a horse powered, screw operated hay press in 1853. Other
models were reported as early as 1843 built by PK Dederick's Sons of Albany, NY, or Samuel

22
Hewitt of Switzerland County, Ohio. Later horizontal machines were devised, such as the
“Perpetual Press” made by PK Dederick in 1872. They could be powered by steam engines by
about 1882. The continuous hay baler arrived in 1914.

Hay is grass, legumes, or other herbaceous plants that have been cut and dried to be stored for
use as animal fodder, particularly for large grazing animals raised as livestock, such
as cattle, horses, donkeys, goats, and sheep.
However, it is also fed to smaller domesticated animals such as rabbits and guinea pigs. Pigs may
also be fed hay, but they do not digest it as efficiently as ruminants.
Hay can be used as animal fodder when or where there is not enough pasture or rangeland on
which to graze an animal, when grazing is not feasible due to weather (such as during the winter),
or when lush pasture by itself would be too rich for the health of the animal.
It is also fed when an animal is unable to access pasture. For example, the animal is being kept in
a stable or barn.

Composition
Commonly used plants for hay include mixtures of grasses such
as ryegrass (Lolium species), timothy, brome, fescue, Bermuda grass, orchard grass, and other
species, depending on region. Hay may also include legumes, such as alfalfa (lucerne)
and clovers (red, white and subterranean).
Legumes in hay are ideally cut pre-bloom. Other pasture forbs are also sometimes a part of the
mix, though these plants are not necessarily desired as certain forbs are toxic to some animals.
Oat, barley, and wheat plant materials are occasionally cut green and made into hay for
animal fodder; however they are more usually used in the form of straw, a harvest byproduct where

23
the stems and dead leaves are baled after the grain has been harvested and threshed. Straw is used
mainly for animal bedding.
Although straw is also used as fodder, particularly as a source of dietary fiber, it has lower
nutritional value than hay.
It is the leaf and seed material in the hay that determines its quality, because they contain more of
the nutrition value for the animal than the stems do.
Farmers try to harvest hay at the point when the seed heads are not quite ripe and the leaf is at its
maximum when the grass is mowed in the field.
The cut material is allowed to dry so that the bulk of the moisture is removed but the leafy material
is still robust enough to be picked up from the ground by machinery and processed into storage in
bales, stacks or pits.
Methods of haymaking thus aim to minimize the shattering and falling away of the leaves during
handling.

Close view of loose grass hay.

Hay is very sensitive to weather conditions, especially when it is harvested. In drought conditions,
both seed and leaf production are stunted, making hay that has a high ratio of dry coarse stems that
have very low nutritional values.

If the weather is too wet, the cut hay may spoil in the field before it can be baled. Thus, the biggest
challenge and risk for farmers in producing hay crops is the weather, especially the weather of the
particular few weeks when the plants are at the best age/maturity for hay.

24
A lucky break in the weather often moves the haymaking tasks (such as mowing, tedding, and
baling) to the top priority on the farm's to-do list.

This is reflected in the idiom to make hay while the sun shines.

After harvest, hay also has to be stored in a manner prevent it from getting wet. Mold and spoilage
reduce nutritional value and may cause illness in animals. A symbiotic fungus in fescue may cause
illness in horses and cattle.

Poor quality hay is dry, bleached out and coarse stemmed. Sometimes, hay stored outdoors will
look like this on the outside but still be green inside the bale. A dried, bleached or coarse bale is
still edible and provides some nutritional value as long as it is dry and not moldy, dusty, or rotting.
The successful harvest of maximum yields of high-quality hay is entirely dependent on the
coincident occurrence of optimum crop, field, and weather conditions. When this occurs, there
may be a period of intense activity on the hay farm while harvest proceeds until weather conditions
become unfavorable.

25
Haystacks - a common country sight
in bygone times

Neil Cryer writes:7

What haystacks were

Hay (above) and straw (below) photographed at identical distances for

comparison purposes. The straw is much rougher.

7
https://www.1900s.org.uk/haystacks.htm

26
'Haystacks' seem to have been a generic term to describe stacks of corn, stacks of hay and stacks
of straw. Such stacks of all kinds were common sights in the fields while I was growing up in the
1940s. In some parts of the country the stacks were known as ricks.

Corn stacks were stacks of sheaves of corn gathered from the fields after drying in the sun, prior
to being threshed. They could be wheat, maize, oats, barley or other cereal crop and they were
lightly thatched to keep out the rain.

Hay was and is dried grass grown as food for animals in the winter, and true haystacks were stacked
hay. They tended to be less rough than corn stacks and were also thatched to keep the rain out.

How haystacks were made

Once the hay was cut it was left on the ground to dry in the sun before being collected. The timing
was critical and depended on the weather.

The moisture content had to be 14% or less, otherwise the bacteria in the grass would multiply in
the haystack and make it so hot that it would catch fire.

At that time, the correct moisture content would have been a matter of judgement by experienced
farmhands. I never saw a haystack on fire, but gather that it was not uncommon. Losing a haystack
to fire would be a severe financial loss to a farmer. (If the grass didn't dry, it was carted off
for silage.)

Dried grass, now hay, being collected from a field where it had been spread out
to dry.

Farmhands raked together the dry grass, now referred to as hay, and threw it onto a special cart
which always seemed to have folding slatted ends.

27
A special lightweight fork was used called a pitchfork - see the photo below - and the act of using
it to load the straw onto the cart was known as pitching.

Haystack in the making.

Note the ladder and the man on top building the stack.

The cart took the hay to the side of the field, close to a gate for easy later access and close to a
hedge if possible, to keep off the worst of the weather.

Once in position, the farmhands stacked up the hay. The stacks came in all shapes and sizes and
were quite large and tall, such that a ladder had to be used for the uppermost layers.

Some haystacks were built on frameworks supported above ground on mushroom-shaped stones
to keep out rats, mice and other vermin, but as this was not always the case, stacks did get infested
with vermin.

28
The final stage was to give the haystacks a rough thatch or mat covering to keep the rain off.

Haystacks complete and time to go home.

Note the height of the haystacks, their light thatch covering and the longer
ladder on the back left. Also note the folding slatted front of the cart.8

Haystacks as playthings - and more

Broken haystacks were well-known as places where courting couples could lie together in relative
privacy, although I dread to think of the insects that they must have lain with.

Haystacks were also play places for children who would climb up them and slide down. Neither
activity would have appealed to farmers because they opened up the haystacks to the weather.

8
(The folding slatted back is not visible, although it can just be seen at the edge of the top photo.) Both pictures are edited details
of images supplied by Send and Ripley History Society.

29
Making and transporting hay

A tractor mowing a hay field, with the cut hay lying in the foreground.

Hay production and harvest, commonly known as "making hay",[8] "haymaking", or "doing hay", involves a
multiple step process: cutting, drying or "curing", raking, processing, and storing.
Hayfields do not have to be reseeded each year in the way that grain crops are, but regular fertilizing is usually
desirable, and overseeding a field every few years helps increase yield.
Methods and the terminology to describe the steps of making hay have varied greatly throughout history, and
many regional variations still exist today.
However, whether done by hand or by modern mechanized equipment, tall grass and legumes at the proper stage
of maturity must be cut, then allowed to dry (preferably by the sun), then raked into long, narrow piles known
as windrows.
Next, the cured hay is gathered up in some form (usually by some type of baling process) and placed for storage
into a haystack or into a barn or shed to protect it from moisture and rot.

30
 A round baler dumping a freshly rolled hay bale

During the growing season, which is spring and early summer in temperate climates, grass grows at a fast pace.
It is at its greatest nutritive value when all leaves are fully developed, and seed or flower heads are just a bit
short of full maturity.
When growth is at a maximum in the pasture or field, if judged correctly, it is cut. Grass hay cut too early will
not cure as easily due to high moisture content, plus it will produce a lower yield per acre than longer, more
mature grass.
But hay cut too late is coarser, lower in resale value and has lost some of its nutrients. There is usually about a
two-week "window" of time in which grass is at its ideal stage for harvesting hay.
The time for cutting alfalfa hay is ideally done when plants reach maximum height and are producing flower
buds or just beginning to bloom, cutting during or after full bloom results in lower nutritional value of the hay.

31
Modern small-scale transport. Pickup truck loaded with "large square" bales

32