Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

April 27, 2020 | 讙壮 讘讗讬讬专 转砖状驻

Masechet Shabbat is sponsored in memory of Elliot Freilich, Eliyahu Daniel ben Bar Tzion David Halevi z"l by a group of women from Kehilath Jeshurun, Manhattan.

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

Shabbat 52

Are animals allowed to carry items that are used for decorative purposes? The mishna discusses the purification of the implements worn on the animal but are they susceptible to impurities? Aren’t only items used by humans susceptible to impurities? How can these items be purified by the animal while wearing it around one’s neck? Isn’t the animal considered a barrier for the water since the water can’t fully surround the item? Rabbi Eliezer tells a student that all rings and all needles are the same when it comes to laws of impurity. The gemara questions this by bringing various sources that indicate otherwise.

讚讗讬转讜转讘 讚注转讬讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讞诪讜专 砖注住拽讬讜 专注讬诐 讻讙讜谉 讝讛 诪讛讜 诇爪讗转 讘驻专讜诪讘讬讗 讘砖讘转 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讻讬 讗诪专 讗讘讜讱 诪砖诪讬讛 讚砖诪讜讗诇 讛诇讻讛 讻讞谞谞讬讗

he will be placated and will understand that it was not my intention to disrespect him. He said to him: An undisciplined donkey whose conduct is wicked like this one that I am riding, what is the ruling with regard to having it go out with a halter on Shabbat? Typically, in order to secure a donkey, a bit suffices and it does not require a halter. A halter constitutes excessive security. However, the question is whether or not a halter that provides excessive security for a wild donkey like this one is considered a burden with which it is prohibited to go out to the public domain on Shabbat. Rabba bar Rav Huna said to him: Even if the security is considered extraneous, your father said the following in the name of Shmuel: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of 岣nanya, who said that a device that provides excessive security is not considered a burden.

转谞讗 讚讘讬 诪谞砖讬讗 注讝 砖讞拽拽 诇讛 讘讬谉 拽专谞讬讛 讬讜爪讗讛 讘讗驻住专 讘砖讘转 讘注讬 专讘 讬讜住祝 转讞讘 诇讛 讘讝拽谞讛 诪讛讜 讻讬讜谉 讚讗讬 诪谞转讞 诇讛 讻讗讬讘 诇讛 诇讗 讗转讬讗 诇谞转讜讞讛 讗讜 讚讬诇诪讗 讝讬诪谞讬谉 讚专驻讬 讜谞驻讬诇 讜讗转讬 诇讗转讜讬讬 讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 讘专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 转讬拽讜

A Sage of the school of Menashiya taught a baraita: A goat in which one carved out a hole between its horns may go out with a bit on Shabbat. Because the bit is inserted through the hole, it will not become detached. Rav Yosef raised a dilemma: What is the ruling in a case where one inserted the bit through the goat鈥檚 beard? The Gemara explains the dilemma: Is the halakha that since, if the goat attempts to sever itself from the bit, it would cause it pain because the bit is attached to its beard, and therefore it will not come to sever it and the bit will remain in place? Or perhaps is the halakha that sometimes the knot will loosen and the bit will fall, and the goat鈥檚 owner will come to bring the bit and carry it four cubits in the public domain? No resolution was found to this dilemma. Let it stand unresolved.

转谞谉 讛转诐 讜诇讗 讘专爪讜注讛 砖讘讬谉 拽专谞讬讛 讗诪专 (诇讬讛) 专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 讘专 讗讘讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讘讛 专讘 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讞讚 讗诪专 讘讬谉 诇谞讜讬 讘讬谉 诇砖诪专 讗住讜专 讜讞讚 讗诪专 诇谞讜讬 讗住讜专 讜诇砖诪专 诪讜转专

We learned there in a mishna: And neither may a cow go out with a strap between its horns. Rabbi Yirmeya bar Abba said: Rav and Shmuel disagreed about this: One said: Whether it was placed for beauty, as an ornament, or whether it was placed to secure the cow, it is prohibited for the cow to go out with the strap between its horns. And the other one said: For beauty, it is prohibited; however, if it was placed to secure the cow, it is permitted.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 转住转讬讬诐 讚砖诪讜讗诇 讛讜讗 讚讗诪专 诇谞讜讬 讗住讜专 诇砖诪专 诪讜转专 讚讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专 讞讬讬讗 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讛诇讻讛 讻讞谞谞讬讗

Rav Yosef said: Conclude that Shmuel is the one who said that if the strap was placed for beauty it is prohibited; however, if it was placed to secure the cow it is permitted. As Rav Huna bar 岣yya said that Shmuel said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of 岣nanya: A device that provides excessive security is not considered a burden. Therefore, an animal may go out on Shabbat with straps that provide excessive security.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讗讚专讘讛 转住转讬讬诐 讚砖诪讜讗诇 讛讜讗 讚讗诪专 讘讬谉 诇谞讜讬 讘讬谉 诇砖诪专 讗住讜专 讚讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 诪讞诇讬驻讬谉 诇驻谞讬 专讘讬 砖诇 讝讜 讘讝讜 诪讛讜 讗诪专 诇驻谞讬讜 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讘专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讻讱 讗诪专 讗讘讗 讗专讘注 讘讛诪讜转 讬讜爪讗讜转 讘讗驻住专 讛住讜住 讛驻专讚 讜讛讙诪诇 讜讛讞诪讜专 诇讗讜 诇诪注讜讟讬 讙诪诇 讘讞讟诐 住诪讬 讛讗 诪拽诪讬 讛讗

Abaye said to him: On the contrary, conclude that Shmuel is the one who said that whether it was placed for beauty, as an ornament, or whether it was placed to secure the cow, it is prohibited. As Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: The students exchanged the details in the mishna before Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and asked: What is the halakha with regard to this animal going out into the public domain with that which is permitted for that animal? And Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosei, said before Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi: So said father, Rabbi Yosei: Four animals may go out with a bit: The horse, the mule, and the camel, and the donkey. Does this list not come to exclude a camel going out with a nose ring, as a nose ring provides excessive security beyond that required for a camel? Apparently, according to Shmuel, an animal may not go out on Shabbat with a device that provides excessive security, as it is considered a burden. Rav Yosef said to him: Delete this latter statement of Shmuel due to that first one.

讜诪讗讬 讞讝讬转 讚诪住诪讬转 讛讗 诪拽诪讬 讛讗 住诪讬 讛讗 诪拽诪讬 讛讗 (讚讗砖讻讞谉 砖诪讜讗诇 讛讜讗 讚讗诪专 诇谞讜讬 讗住讜专 诇砖诪专 诪讜转专 讚讗转诪专) 专讘 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗砖讬 讗诪专 专讘 讘讬谉 诇谞讜讬 讘讬谉 诇砖诪专 讗住讜专 讜专讘 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗讘讬谉 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 诇谞讜讬 讗住讜专 诇砖诪专 诪讜转专

The Gemara asks: And what did you see that led you to delete this latter statement due that first one? Delete that first statement due to this latter one. The Gemara explains: The first statement is supported as we find that Shmuel is the one who said : For beauty, it is prohibited; however, if it was placed to secure the cow, it is permitted, as it was stated that Rav 岣yya bar Ashi said that Rav said: Whether the strap was placed for beauty, or whether it was placed to secure the cow, it is prohibited. And Rav 岣yya bar Avin said that Shmuel said: For beauty, it is prohibited; however, if it was placed to secure the cow, it is permitted.

诪讬转讬讘讬 拽砖专讛 讘注诇讬讛 讘诪讜住专讛 讻砖专讛 讜讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 诪砖讗讜讬 讛讜讗 讗砖专 诇讗 注诇讛 注诇讬讛 注讜诇 讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗

The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita: If its owner tied a red heifer with its reins that are attached to the bit, it remains fit for use in the purification ritual. And if it should enter your mind to say that a bit is considered a burden, why does a red heifer remain fit for use? The Torah explicitly stated: 鈥淪peak to the children of Israel, that they bring you a red heifer without defect, in which there is no blemish, and upon which never came a yoke鈥 (Numbers 19:2). A red heifer is disqualified by a burden.

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讘诪讜诇讬讻讛 诪注讬专 诇注讬专 专讘讗 讗诪专 砖讗谞讬 驻专讛 讚讚诪讬讛 讬拽专讬谉 专讘讬谞讗 讗诪专 讘诪讜专讚转:

Abaye said: There, the baraita is referring to the case of a red heifer whose owner is leading it from city to city. When the animal is removed from its habitat, it requires additional security. In that case, tying the heifer with its reins is conventional rather than excessive security. Therefore, the bit is not considered a burden. Rava said: A red heifer, whose monetary value is high, is different and therefore secured more carefully than other cows. Ravina said: The baraita is referring to a red heifer that is rebellious and headstrong. Therefore, it requires added security.

讛住讜住 讘砖讬专 讜讻讜壮: 诪讗讬 讬讜爪讗讬谉 讜诪讗讬 谞诪砖讻讬谉 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗讜 讬讜爪讗讬谉 讻专讜讻讬谉 讗讜 谞诪砖讻讬谉 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 讬讜爪讗讬谉 谞诪砖讻讬谉 讜讗讬谉 讬讜爪讗讬谉 讻专讜讻讬谉

We learned in the mishna: A horse may go out with a chain around its neck, and so too, all animals that typically have chains around their necks when they go out to the public domain may go out with chains on Shabbat and may be pulled by the chains. The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of: May go out, and what is the meaning of: May be pulled? Rav Huna said: These animals may go out either with the chain wrapped around their necks as an ornament, or they may be pulled by the chain. And Shmuel said: These animals may go out pulled by the chain; however, they may not go out with the chain wrapped around their necks as an ornament.

讘诪转谞讬转讗 转谞讗 讬讜爪讗讬谉 讻专讜讻讬谉 诇讬诪砖讱 讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 讞讝讬谞讗 诇讛讜 诇注讬讙诇讬 讚讘讬 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讬讜爪讗讬谉 讘讗驻住专讬讛谉 讻专讜讻讬谉 讘砖讘转

It was taught in a baraita: They may go out with the chains loosely wrapped around their necks, so that if the need arises, the animals will be able to be pulled by their chains. Rav Yosef said: I saw the calves of the house of Rav Huna go out into the public domain on Shabbat with their bits and with the reins wrapped around their necks.

讻讬 讗转讗 专讘 讚讬诪讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 诪讜诇讗讜转 砖诇 讘讬转 专讘讬 讬讜爪讗讜转 讘讗驻住专讬讛谉 讘砖讘转 讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 讻专讜讻讬谉 讗讜 谞诪砖讻讬谉

When Rav Dimi came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he said that Rabbi 岣nina said: The mules of the house of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi go out into the public domain with their bits on Shabbat. A dilemma was raised before the Sages: Does this mean that the mules went out with their bits and reins wrapped around their necks; or, does it mean that they were pulled by the reins?

转讗 砖诪注 讻讬 讗转讗 专讘 砖诪讜讗诇 讘专 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 讞谞讬谞讗 诪讜诇讗讜转 砖诇 讘讬转 专讘讬 讬讜爪讗讜转 讘讗驻住专讬讛谉 讻专讜讻讬诐 讘砖讘转

Come and hear a resolution to this dilemma from the following incident: When Rav Shmuel bar Yehuda came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he said that Rabbi 岣nina said: The mules [molaot] of the house of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi went out on Shabbat with their bits with the reins wrapped around their necks.

讗诪专讜讛 专讘谞谉 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 讗住讬 讛讗 讚专讘 砖诪讜讗诇 讘专 讬讛讜讚讛 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 诪讚专讘 讚讬诪讬 谞驻拽讗 讚讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讚专讘 讚讬诪讬 谞诪砖讻讬谉 拽讗诪专 诪讚专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 谞驻拽讗

The Sages said before Rav Asi: That statement of Rav Shmuel bar Yehuda is not necessary. It may be derived from the statement of Rav Dimi. As, if it would enter your mind to say that Rav Dimi said that the mules of the house of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi went out on Shabbat pulled by their bits, it is difficult. There is nothing novel in that statement, as it may be derived from the statement that Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said.

讚讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 诪讞诇讬驻讬谉 讛讬讜 诇驻谞讬 专讘讬 砖诇 讝讜 讘讝讜 诪讛讜 讗诪专 诇驻谞讬讜 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讘专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讻讱 讗诪专 讗讘讗 讗专讘注 讘讛诪讜转 讬讜爪讗转 讘讗驻住专 讛住讜住 讜讛驻专讚 讜讛讙诪诇 讜讛讞诪讜专

As Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: The students switched the details in the mishna before Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, and asked: What is the halakha with regard to this animal going out into the public domain with that which is permitted for that animal? And Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosei, said before Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi: So said father, four animals may go out with a bit: The horse, and the mule, and the camel, and the donkey. Apparently, according to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, a mule may go out on Shabbat pulled by its bit.

讗诪专 诇讛讜 专讘 讗住讬 讗讬爪讟专讬讱 诇讛讜 讚讗讬 诪讚专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 谞驻拽讗 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 讗诪专 诇驻谞讬讜 讜诇讗 拽讬讘诇讛 诪讬谞讬讛 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讚专讘 讚讬诪讬

Rav Asi said to them: This statement of Rav Shmuel bar Yehuda is necessary, as if it were derived from the statement of Rav Yehuda, who related that which Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosei, said before Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, I would have said that Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosei, said that before him, and Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi did not accept it from him. Therefore, that statement of Rav Dimi teaches us that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi indeed accepted it from Rabbi Yishmael and his mules went out with their bits on Shabbat.

讜讗讬 讚专讘 讚讬诪讬 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 谞诪砖讻讬谉 讗讘诇 讻专讜讻讬谉 诇讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讚专讘 砖诪讜讗诇 讘专 (专讘) 讬讛讜讚讛:

And if it had been derived only from the statement of Rav Dimi, I would have said that this applies only when the mule is pulled by its bit; however, if the reins are merely wrapped around the animal鈥檚 neck, no, the animal may not go out with it. Therefore, that statement of Rav Shmuel bar Rav Yehuda teaches us that the mules of the house of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi went out on Shabbat with their reins wrapped around their necks.

讜诪讝讬谉 注诇讬讛谉 讜讟讜讘诇谉 讘诪拽讜诪谉: 诇诪讬诪专讗 讚讘谞讬 拽讘讜诇讬 讟讜诪讗讛 谞讬谞讛讜 讜讛转谞谉 讟讘注转 讗讚诐 讟诪讗讛 讜讟讘注转 讘讛诪讛 讜讻诇讬诐 讜砖讗专 讻诇 讛讟讘注讜转

It was further taught in our mishna: If these chains contracted ritual impurity, one may sprinkle water of purification on them and immerse them in their place on the animal. The Gemara asks: Is that to say that these chains are fit to contract ritual impurity? Didn鈥檛 we learn in a mishna: A ring worn by a person is ritually impure. However, the ring of an animal, and rings of utensils, and all other rings not worn by people

讟讛讜专讜转

are ritually pure.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 (谞驻讞讗) 讘讘讗讬谉 诪谞讜讬 讗讚诐 诇谞讜讬 讘讛诪讛

Rabbi Yitz岣k Nappa岣 said: Our mishna is referring to ornaments that were transformed from their original designation for a person鈥檚 adornment to an ornament designated for an animal鈥檚 adornment. They had once belonged to a person who later affixed them in order to attach a strap to an animal. Their original ritual impurity does not cease when they are attached to the animal.

讜专讘 讬讜住祝 讗诪专 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讗讚诐 诪讜砖讱 讘讛诐 讗转 讛讘讛诪讛 诪讬 诇讗 转谞讬讗 诪拽诇 砖诇 讘讛诪讛 砖诇 诪转讻转 诪拽讘诇 讟讜诪讗讛 诪讛 讟注诐 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讗讚诐 专讜讚讛 讘讛谉 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讗讚诐 诪讜砖讱 讘讛谉:

And Rav Yosef said: Animals鈥 rings can become ritually impure since a person pulls his animal with them. Consequently, they are considered utensils used by people. Wasn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: The metal animal prod becomes ritually impure? What is the reason that it becomes ritually impure even though it is an animal鈥檚 utensil? Since a person subjugates his animal with it, it is regarded as a utensil for use by a person; therefore, it can become ritually impure. Here too, with regard to chains, since a person pulls his animal with them, they are regarded as utensils for use by a person.

讜讟讜讘诇谉 讘诪拽讜诪谉: 讜讛讗讬讻讗 讞爪讬爪讛

And we learned in our mishna: If the animals鈥 chains became ritually impure, one may immerse them while they are in their place on the animal, and they need not first be removed. The Gemara raises a question: Isn鈥檛 this an obstruction that renders the immersion invalid? The rings of the chain are firmly attached to the chain, and there is no room for the water of the ritual bath to completely surround the chain.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诪讬 讘砖专讬转讻谉

Rabbi Ami said: The mishna is referring to a case where he struck the rings of the chain with a hammer, widening them and thereby creating sufficient space to allow the water to surround the chain on all sides.

诇讬诪讗 专讘讬 讗诪讬 讻专讘 讬讜住祝 住讘讬专讗 诇讬讛 讚讗讬 讻专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 (谞驻讞讗) 讚讗诪专 讘讘讗讬谉 诪谞讜讬 讗讚诐 诇谞讜讬 讘讛诪讛 讻讬讜谉 讚专讬转讻谉 注讘讚 讘讛讜 诪注砖讛 讜驻专讞讛 诇讛 讟讜诪讗讛 诪讬谞讬讬讛讜

The Gemara asks: Let us say that Rabbi Ami holds in accordance with the opinion of Rav Yosef. As, if he held in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yitz岣k Nappa岣, who said that our mishna is referring to ornaments that were transformed from their original designation for a person鈥檚 adornment to an ornament designated for an animal鈥檚 adornment, and therefore they can be ritually impure with impurity contracted while it was still a person鈥檚 ornament, it is difficult. Since he struck the chain, he performed an action which altered its identity, and the impurity would have ceased even without immersion.

讚转谞谉 讻诇 讛讻诇讬诐 讬讜专讚讬谉 诇讬讚讬 讟讜诪讗转谉 讘诪讞砖讘讛 讜讗讬谉 注讜诇讬谉 诪讟讜诪讗转谉 讗诇讗 讘砖讬谞讜讬 诪注砖讛

As we learned in a mishna: All vessels descend into their state of ritual impurity by means of thought. Even though an unfinished vessel cannot become ritually impure, if the craftsman decided not to complete it, it immediately assumes the legal status of a completed vessel and can become ritually impure. However, they only ascend from their state of ritual impurity by means of a change resulting from an action. A ritually impure vessel, once it undergoes physical change, is no longer ritually impure. Hammering the rings is an action that effects physical change. Therefore, the chain should be ritually pure without immersion.

住讘专 诇讛 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讚讗诪专 诪注砖讛 诇转拽谉 诇讗讜 诪注砖讛 讛讜讗 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 诇讗 讗诪专 砖讬谞讜讬 诪注砖讛 诇转拽谉 讗诇讗 诇拽诇拽诇

The Gemara rejects this argument: Actually, Rabbi Ami could interpret the mishna just as Rabbi Yitz岣k Nappa岣 did, as he holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, who said that an action performed to enhance a utensil is not an action capable of ridding that utensil of its ritual impurity, as it was taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yehuda said: He did not say that an action that effects a physical change purifies a utensil of its ritual impurity with regard to an action performed to enhance a utensil; rather, he made his statement with regard to an action performed to ruin the utensil.

讘诪转谞讬转讗 转谞讬 讘诪讞讜诇诇讬谉

It was taught in a baraita: The mishna is referring to a case where the rings attached to the chain are well spaced so that the water completely surrounds the rings of the chain with no obstruction.

砖讗诇 转诇诪讬讚 讗讞讚 诪讙诇讬诇 讛注诇讬讜谉 讗转 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 砖诪注转讬 砖讞讜诇拽讬谉 讘讬谉 讟讘注转 诇讟讘注转 讗诪专 诇讜 砖诪讗 诇讗 砖诪注转 讗诇讗 诇注谞讬谉 砖讘转 讚讗讬 诇注谞讬谉 讟讜诪讗讛 讚讗 讜讚讗 讞讚讗 讛讬讗

It was taught in the Tosefta: A certain disciple from the Upper Galilee asked Rabbi Eliezer: I heard that one distinguishes between one type of ring and another type of ring. However, I do not know with regard to what halakha this distinction is made. Rabbi Eliezer said to him: Perhaps you only heard that distinction with regard to the matter of Shabbat; a ring for adornment may be moved on Shabbat and other rings may not. As, with regard to the matter of ritual impurity, this ring and that ring are one and the same, and there is no distinction between them.

讜诇注谞讬谉 讟讜诪讗讛 讚讗 讜讚讗 讗讞转 讛讬讗 讜讛转谞谉 讟讘注转 讗讚诐 讟诪讗讛 讜讟讘注转 讘讛诪讛 讜讻诇讬诐 讜砖讗专 讻诇 讛讟讘注讜转 讟讛讜专讜转 讻讬 拽讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬讛讜 谞诪讬 讚讗讚诐 拽讗诪专 诇讬讛

The Gemara raises an objection: And with regard to the matter of ritual impurity, are this and that one and the same? Didn鈥檛 we learn in a mishna: A ring worn by a person is ritually impure; however, the ring of an animal, and that of utensils, and all other rings not worn by people are ritually pure? Apparently, a distinction is made between different types of rings with regard to the halakhot of ritual impurity as well. The Gemara answers: When Rabbi Eliezer was saying that statement to the disciple, he too was saying to him that with regard to ritual impurity there is no distinction between different types of rings worn by a person.

讜讚讗讚诐 讚讗 讜讚讗 讗讞转 讛讬讗 讜讛转谞讬讗 讟讘注转 砖讛转拽讬谞讛 诇讞讙讜专 讘讛 诪转谞讬讜 讜诇拽砖专 讘讛 讘讬谉 讻转驻讬讜 讟讛讜专讛 讜诇讗 讗诪专讜 讟诪讗讛 讗诇讗 砖诇 讗爪讘注 讘诇讘讚 讻讬 拽讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬讛讜 谞诪讬 讚讗爪讘注 拽讗诪专 诇讬讛

The Gemara raises another objection: And with regard to rings worn by a person, are this and that one and the same? Wasn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: A ring that one fashioned into a buckle at the end of a belt to wear it around his waist, or into a clasp to tie garments between his shoulders, is ritually pure? The Sages only said that a ring is ritually impure with regard to a ring worn on a person鈥檚 finger. Apparently, there is in fact a distinction between different rings worn by a person. The Gemara answers: When Rabbi Eliezer was saying that statement to the disciple, he too was saying to him that there is no distinction between different types of rings worn on a person鈥檚 finger.

讜讚讗爪讘注 讚讗 讜讚讗 讗讞转 讛讬讗 讜讛转谞谉 讟讘注转 砖诇 诪转讻转 讜讞讜转诪讛 砖诇 讗诇诪讜讙 讟诪讗讛 讛讬讗 砖诇 讗诇诪讜讙 讜讞讜转诪讛 砖诇 诪转讻转 讟讛讜专讛 讻讬 拽讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬讛讜 谞诪讬 讻讜诇讛 砖诇 诪转讻转 拽讗诪专 诇讬讛

The Gemara raises yet another objection: And with regard to rings worn on a person鈥檚 finger, are this and that one and the same? Didn鈥檛 we learn in a mishna: A ring made of metal and its seal is made of coral, is ritually impure? The primary component of the ring, metal, is the determining factor, and a metal utensil can become ritually impure. However, a ring that is made of coral and its seal is made of metal is ritually pure. Apparently, there is a distinction between different types of finger rings with regard to ritual impurity. The Gemara answers: When Rabbi Eliezer was saying that statement to the disciple, he too was saying to him that there is no distinction between different types of rings that are made entirely of metal.

讜注讜讚 砖讗诇 砖诪注转讬 砖讞讜诇拽讬谉 讘讬谉 诪讞讟 诇诪讞讟 讗诪专 诇讬讛 砖诪讗 诇讗 砖诪注转 讗诇讗 诇注谞讬谉 砖讘转 讚讗讬 诇注谞讬谉 讟讜诪讗讛 讚讗 讜讚讗 讗讞转 讛讬讗

And furthermore, that same disciple asked: I heard that one distinguishes between one type of needle and another type of needle. Still, I do not know with regard to what halakha this distinction is made. Rabbi Eliezer said to him: Perhaps you only heard that distinction with regard to Shabbat. With regard to the prohibition of carrying from a private to a public domain, or vice versa, there is a distinction between a needle with an eye, for which one is liable to bring a sin-offering, and one without an eye, for which one is not. As, if you were to suggest that the distinction is with regard to ritual impurity, this, a needle with an eye, and that, a needle without an eye, are one and the same, and there is no distinction between them.

讜诇注谞讬谉 讟讜诪讗讛 讚讗 讜讚讗 讗讞转 讛讬讗 讜讛转谞谉 诪讞讟 砖谞讬讟诇 讞讜专讛 讗讜 注讜拽爪讛 讟讛讜专讛 讻讬 拽讗诪专 诇讬讛 讘砖诇讬诪讛

The Gemara raises an objection: And with regard to the matter of ritual impurity, are this and that one and the same? Are all needles alike? Didn鈥檛 we learn in a mishna: A needle whose eye or whose point was removed is ritually pure, as it is no longer fit for use? Apparently, there is a distinction between an intact needle and a broken one with regard to the halakhot of ritual impurity. The Gemara answers: When Rabbi Eliezer was saying that statement to the disciple, he was referring to a whole needle. Indeed, there is no distinction between different types of whole needles with regard to the halakhot of ritual impurity.

讜讘砖诇讬诪讛 讚讗 讜讚讗 讗讞转 讛讬讗 讜讛转谞谉 诪讞讟 砖讛注诇转讛 讞诇讜讚讛 讗诐 诪注讻讘 讗转 讛转驻讬专讛 讟讛讜专讛 讜讗诐 诇讗讜 讟诪讗讛 讜讗诪专讬 讚讘讬 专讘讬 讬谞讗讬 讜讛讜讗 砖专讬砖讜诪讛 谞讬讻专 讻讬 拽讗诪专 诇讬讛 讘砖讬驻讗 拽讗诪专 诇讬讛

The Gemara raises another objection: And with regard to whole needles, are this and that one and the same? Is there no distinction between them? Didn鈥檛 we learn in a mishna: With regard to a needle that became rusty; if the rust inhibits the sewing, the needle is ritually pure; and if it does not inhibit the sewing, it is ritually impure. And the Sages of the school of Rabbi Yannai said: And that is the halakha that the needle cannot become ritually impure not only when it is impossible to push the needle through the fabric, but even when the mark of rusty needle is conspicuous in the stitching. Apparently, there is a distinction between different types of whole needles. The Gemara answers: When Rabbi Eliezer was saying that statement to the disciple, he was saying to him that there is no distinction between different types of needles that were smoothed and filed. He was not referring to rusty needles.

讜讘砖讬驻讗 讚讗 讜讚讗 讗讞转 讛讬讗 讜讛转谞讬讗 诪讞讟 讘讬谉 谞拽讜讘讛 讘讬谉 讗讬谞讛 谞拽讜讘讛 诪讜转专 诇讟诇讟诇讛 讘砖讘转 讜诇讗 讗诪专讬谞谉 谞拽讜讘讛 讗诇讗 诇注谞讬谉 讟讜诪讗讛 讘诇讘讚

The Gemara raises yet another objection: And with regard to smoothed needles, are this and that one and the same? Wasn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: A needle, whether it has an eye and whether it does not have an eye, may be moved on Shabbat? And we only said that a needle with an eye is different with regard to the halakhot of ritual impurity. Apparently, there is a distinction between different types of smoothed needles with regard to the halakhot of ritual impurity.

讛讗 转专讙诪讗 讗讘讬讬 讗诇讬讘讗 讚专讘讗 讘讙诇诪讬:

The Gemara answers: Didn鈥檛 Abaye already interpret that baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rava as referring to unfinished needles? If a needle is unfinished, and it has not been perforated to create an eye, it cannot become ritually impure because it is not yet a utensil. However, if the needle is finished, whether it has an eye and is used for sewing, or it does not have an eye and is used as a pin, it is regarded as a utensil and therefore can become ritually impure.

诪转谞讬壮 讞诪讜专 讬讜爪讗 讘诪专讚注转 讘讝诪谉 砖讛讬讗 拽砖讜专讛 讘讜 讝讻专讬诐 讬讜爪讗讬谉 诇讘讜讘讬谉 专讞诇讜转 讬讜爪讗讜转 砖讞讜讝讜转 讻讘讜诇讜转 讜讻讘讜谞讜转 讛注讝讬诐 讬讜爪讗讜转 爪专讜专讜转 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜住专 讘讻讜诇谉 讞讜抓 诪谉 讛专讞诇讬谉 讛讻讘讜谞讜转

MISHNA: A donkey may go out on Shabbat with a saddlecloth that protects it from the cold when it is tied to the animal, and there is no room for concern lest it fall. Rams may go out levuvin. Ewes may go out she岣zot, kevulot, and kevunot. All of these terms are discussed and explained in the Gemara. She-goats may go out with their udders bound. Rabbi Yosei prohibits the animals from going out with all of these items, as he considers them burdens, except for the ewes that are kevunot.

专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 注讝讬诐 讬讜爪讗讜转 爪专讜专讜转 诇讬讘砖 讗讘诇 诇讗 诇讞诇讘:

Rabbi Yehuda says: Goats may go out on Shabbat with their udders bound to dry their milk supply and discontinue their lactation, in order to facilitate conception. In that case, they are tied with a tight, permanent knot, and there is no concern lest it fall in the public domain. However, they may not go out with their udders bound to conserve their milk, as in that case they are bound loosely.

Masechet Shabbat is sponsored in memory of Elliot Freilich, Eliyahu Daniel ben Bar Tzion David Halevi z"l by a group of women from Kehilath Jeshurun, Manhattan.

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

daf yomi One week at a time (1)

Daf Yomi: One Week at a Time: Shabbat 47-54

We will review Daf 47-54 and talk about insulating food on Shabbat, the power of wearing Tefilin, and can animals...
Weaving Wisdom

Rabbis, Archaeologist and Linguists

In the Daf Yomi, we see many interesting discussions about ancient vessels and other types of furnishings and tools.聽 An...
talking talmud_square

Shabbat 52: An Unruly Red Heifer

Animals in the public domain - what can they wear, what counts as "carrying"? We focus on the parah adumah,...
talking talmud_square

Shabbat 42: When You Dig a Hole, Do You Need the Hole, or Do You Need the Dirt?

So many ways of not *meaning* to do melakhah. Partially defining "melekhet machshevet," and its requirements. Intent (davar she'eino mitkaven)....

Shabbat 52

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Shabbat 52

讚讗讬转讜转讘 讚注转讬讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讞诪讜专 砖注住拽讬讜 专注讬诐 讻讙讜谉 讝讛 诪讛讜 诇爪讗转 讘驻专讜诪讘讬讗 讘砖讘转 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讻讬 讗诪专 讗讘讜讱 诪砖诪讬讛 讚砖诪讜讗诇 讛诇讻讛 讻讞谞谞讬讗

he will be placated and will understand that it was not my intention to disrespect him. He said to him: An undisciplined donkey whose conduct is wicked like this one that I am riding, what is the ruling with regard to having it go out with a halter on Shabbat? Typically, in order to secure a donkey, a bit suffices and it does not require a halter. A halter constitutes excessive security. However, the question is whether or not a halter that provides excessive security for a wild donkey like this one is considered a burden with which it is prohibited to go out to the public domain on Shabbat. Rabba bar Rav Huna said to him: Even if the security is considered extraneous, your father said the following in the name of Shmuel: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of 岣nanya, who said that a device that provides excessive security is not considered a burden.

转谞讗 讚讘讬 诪谞砖讬讗 注讝 砖讞拽拽 诇讛 讘讬谉 拽专谞讬讛 讬讜爪讗讛 讘讗驻住专 讘砖讘转 讘注讬 专讘 讬讜住祝 转讞讘 诇讛 讘讝拽谞讛 诪讛讜 讻讬讜谉 讚讗讬 诪谞转讞 诇讛 讻讗讬讘 诇讛 诇讗 讗转讬讗 诇谞转讜讞讛 讗讜 讚讬诇诪讗 讝讬诪谞讬谉 讚专驻讬 讜谞驻讬诇 讜讗转讬 诇讗转讜讬讬 讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 讘专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 转讬拽讜

A Sage of the school of Menashiya taught a baraita: A goat in which one carved out a hole between its horns may go out with a bit on Shabbat. Because the bit is inserted through the hole, it will not become detached. Rav Yosef raised a dilemma: What is the ruling in a case where one inserted the bit through the goat鈥檚 beard? The Gemara explains the dilemma: Is the halakha that since, if the goat attempts to sever itself from the bit, it would cause it pain because the bit is attached to its beard, and therefore it will not come to sever it and the bit will remain in place? Or perhaps is the halakha that sometimes the knot will loosen and the bit will fall, and the goat鈥檚 owner will come to bring the bit and carry it four cubits in the public domain? No resolution was found to this dilemma. Let it stand unresolved.

转谞谉 讛转诐 讜诇讗 讘专爪讜注讛 砖讘讬谉 拽专谞讬讛 讗诪专 (诇讬讛) 专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 讘专 讗讘讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讘讛 专讘 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讞讚 讗诪专 讘讬谉 诇谞讜讬 讘讬谉 诇砖诪专 讗住讜专 讜讞讚 讗诪专 诇谞讜讬 讗住讜专 讜诇砖诪专 诪讜转专

We learned there in a mishna: And neither may a cow go out with a strap between its horns. Rabbi Yirmeya bar Abba said: Rav and Shmuel disagreed about this: One said: Whether it was placed for beauty, as an ornament, or whether it was placed to secure the cow, it is prohibited for the cow to go out with the strap between its horns. And the other one said: For beauty, it is prohibited; however, if it was placed to secure the cow, it is permitted.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 转住转讬讬诐 讚砖诪讜讗诇 讛讜讗 讚讗诪专 诇谞讜讬 讗住讜专 诇砖诪专 诪讜转专 讚讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专 讞讬讬讗 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讛诇讻讛 讻讞谞谞讬讗

Rav Yosef said: Conclude that Shmuel is the one who said that if the strap was placed for beauty it is prohibited; however, if it was placed to secure the cow it is permitted. As Rav Huna bar 岣yya said that Shmuel said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of 岣nanya: A device that provides excessive security is not considered a burden. Therefore, an animal may go out on Shabbat with straps that provide excessive security.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讗讚专讘讛 转住转讬讬诐 讚砖诪讜讗诇 讛讜讗 讚讗诪专 讘讬谉 诇谞讜讬 讘讬谉 诇砖诪专 讗住讜专 讚讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 诪讞诇讬驻讬谉 诇驻谞讬 专讘讬 砖诇 讝讜 讘讝讜 诪讛讜 讗诪专 诇驻谞讬讜 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讘专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讻讱 讗诪专 讗讘讗 讗专讘注 讘讛诪讜转 讬讜爪讗讜转 讘讗驻住专 讛住讜住 讛驻专讚 讜讛讙诪诇 讜讛讞诪讜专 诇讗讜 诇诪注讜讟讬 讙诪诇 讘讞讟诐 住诪讬 讛讗 诪拽诪讬 讛讗

Abaye said to him: On the contrary, conclude that Shmuel is the one who said that whether it was placed for beauty, as an ornament, or whether it was placed to secure the cow, it is prohibited. As Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: The students exchanged the details in the mishna before Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and asked: What is the halakha with regard to this animal going out into the public domain with that which is permitted for that animal? And Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosei, said before Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi: So said father, Rabbi Yosei: Four animals may go out with a bit: The horse, the mule, and the camel, and the donkey. Does this list not come to exclude a camel going out with a nose ring, as a nose ring provides excessive security beyond that required for a camel? Apparently, according to Shmuel, an animal may not go out on Shabbat with a device that provides excessive security, as it is considered a burden. Rav Yosef said to him: Delete this latter statement of Shmuel due to that first one.

讜诪讗讬 讞讝讬转 讚诪住诪讬转 讛讗 诪拽诪讬 讛讗 住诪讬 讛讗 诪拽诪讬 讛讗 (讚讗砖讻讞谉 砖诪讜讗诇 讛讜讗 讚讗诪专 诇谞讜讬 讗住讜专 诇砖诪专 诪讜转专 讚讗转诪专) 专讘 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗砖讬 讗诪专 专讘 讘讬谉 诇谞讜讬 讘讬谉 诇砖诪专 讗住讜专 讜专讘 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗讘讬谉 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 诇谞讜讬 讗住讜专 诇砖诪专 诪讜转专

The Gemara asks: And what did you see that led you to delete this latter statement due that first one? Delete that first statement due to this latter one. The Gemara explains: The first statement is supported as we find that Shmuel is the one who said : For beauty, it is prohibited; however, if it was placed to secure the cow, it is permitted, as it was stated that Rav 岣yya bar Ashi said that Rav said: Whether the strap was placed for beauty, or whether it was placed to secure the cow, it is prohibited. And Rav 岣yya bar Avin said that Shmuel said: For beauty, it is prohibited; however, if it was placed to secure the cow, it is permitted.

诪讬转讬讘讬 拽砖专讛 讘注诇讬讛 讘诪讜住专讛 讻砖专讛 讜讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 诪砖讗讜讬 讛讜讗 讗砖专 诇讗 注诇讛 注诇讬讛 注讜诇 讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗

The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita: If its owner tied a red heifer with its reins that are attached to the bit, it remains fit for use in the purification ritual. And if it should enter your mind to say that a bit is considered a burden, why does a red heifer remain fit for use? The Torah explicitly stated: 鈥淪peak to the children of Israel, that they bring you a red heifer without defect, in which there is no blemish, and upon which never came a yoke鈥 (Numbers 19:2). A red heifer is disqualified by a burden.

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讘诪讜诇讬讻讛 诪注讬专 诇注讬专 专讘讗 讗诪专 砖讗谞讬 驻专讛 讚讚诪讬讛 讬拽专讬谉 专讘讬谞讗 讗诪专 讘诪讜专讚转:

Abaye said: There, the baraita is referring to the case of a red heifer whose owner is leading it from city to city. When the animal is removed from its habitat, it requires additional security. In that case, tying the heifer with its reins is conventional rather than excessive security. Therefore, the bit is not considered a burden. Rava said: A red heifer, whose monetary value is high, is different and therefore secured more carefully than other cows. Ravina said: The baraita is referring to a red heifer that is rebellious and headstrong. Therefore, it requires added security.

讛住讜住 讘砖讬专 讜讻讜壮: 诪讗讬 讬讜爪讗讬谉 讜诪讗讬 谞诪砖讻讬谉 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗讜 讬讜爪讗讬谉 讻专讜讻讬谉 讗讜 谞诪砖讻讬谉 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 讬讜爪讗讬谉 谞诪砖讻讬谉 讜讗讬谉 讬讜爪讗讬谉 讻专讜讻讬谉

We learned in the mishna: A horse may go out with a chain around its neck, and so too, all animals that typically have chains around their necks when they go out to the public domain may go out with chains on Shabbat and may be pulled by the chains. The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of: May go out, and what is the meaning of: May be pulled? Rav Huna said: These animals may go out either with the chain wrapped around their necks as an ornament, or they may be pulled by the chain. And Shmuel said: These animals may go out pulled by the chain; however, they may not go out with the chain wrapped around their necks as an ornament.

讘诪转谞讬转讗 转谞讗 讬讜爪讗讬谉 讻专讜讻讬谉 诇讬诪砖讱 讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 讞讝讬谞讗 诇讛讜 诇注讬讙诇讬 讚讘讬 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讬讜爪讗讬谉 讘讗驻住专讬讛谉 讻专讜讻讬谉 讘砖讘转

It was taught in a baraita: They may go out with the chains loosely wrapped around their necks, so that if the need arises, the animals will be able to be pulled by their chains. Rav Yosef said: I saw the calves of the house of Rav Huna go out into the public domain on Shabbat with their bits and with the reins wrapped around their necks.

讻讬 讗转讗 专讘 讚讬诪讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 诪讜诇讗讜转 砖诇 讘讬转 专讘讬 讬讜爪讗讜转 讘讗驻住专讬讛谉 讘砖讘转 讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 讻专讜讻讬谉 讗讜 谞诪砖讻讬谉

When Rav Dimi came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he said that Rabbi 岣nina said: The mules of the house of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi go out into the public domain with their bits on Shabbat. A dilemma was raised before the Sages: Does this mean that the mules went out with their bits and reins wrapped around their necks; or, does it mean that they were pulled by the reins?

转讗 砖诪注 讻讬 讗转讗 专讘 砖诪讜讗诇 讘专 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 讞谞讬谞讗 诪讜诇讗讜转 砖诇 讘讬转 专讘讬 讬讜爪讗讜转 讘讗驻住专讬讛谉 讻专讜讻讬诐 讘砖讘转

Come and hear a resolution to this dilemma from the following incident: When Rav Shmuel bar Yehuda came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he said that Rabbi 岣nina said: The mules [molaot] of the house of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi went out on Shabbat with their bits with the reins wrapped around their necks.

讗诪专讜讛 专讘谞谉 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 讗住讬 讛讗 讚专讘 砖诪讜讗诇 讘专 讬讛讜讚讛 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 诪讚专讘 讚讬诪讬 谞驻拽讗 讚讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讚专讘 讚讬诪讬 谞诪砖讻讬谉 拽讗诪专 诪讚专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 谞驻拽讗

The Sages said before Rav Asi: That statement of Rav Shmuel bar Yehuda is not necessary. It may be derived from the statement of Rav Dimi. As, if it would enter your mind to say that Rav Dimi said that the mules of the house of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi went out on Shabbat pulled by their bits, it is difficult. There is nothing novel in that statement, as it may be derived from the statement that Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said.

讚讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 诪讞诇讬驻讬谉 讛讬讜 诇驻谞讬 专讘讬 砖诇 讝讜 讘讝讜 诪讛讜 讗诪专 诇驻谞讬讜 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讘专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讻讱 讗诪专 讗讘讗 讗专讘注 讘讛诪讜转 讬讜爪讗转 讘讗驻住专 讛住讜住 讜讛驻专讚 讜讛讙诪诇 讜讛讞诪讜专

As Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: The students switched the details in the mishna before Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, and asked: What is the halakha with regard to this animal going out into the public domain with that which is permitted for that animal? And Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosei, said before Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi: So said father, four animals may go out with a bit: The horse, and the mule, and the camel, and the donkey. Apparently, according to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, a mule may go out on Shabbat pulled by its bit.

讗诪专 诇讛讜 专讘 讗住讬 讗讬爪讟专讬讱 诇讛讜 讚讗讬 诪讚专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 谞驻拽讗 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 讗诪专 诇驻谞讬讜 讜诇讗 拽讬讘诇讛 诪讬谞讬讛 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讚专讘 讚讬诪讬

Rav Asi said to them: This statement of Rav Shmuel bar Yehuda is necessary, as if it were derived from the statement of Rav Yehuda, who related that which Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosei, said before Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, I would have said that Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosei, said that before him, and Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi did not accept it from him. Therefore, that statement of Rav Dimi teaches us that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi indeed accepted it from Rabbi Yishmael and his mules went out with their bits on Shabbat.

讜讗讬 讚专讘 讚讬诪讬 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 谞诪砖讻讬谉 讗讘诇 讻专讜讻讬谉 诇讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讚专讘 砖诪讜讗诇 讘专 (专讘) 讬讛讜讚讛:

And if it had been derived only from the statement of Rav Dimi, I would have said that this applies only when the mule is pulled by its bit; however, if the reins are merely wrapped around the animal鈥檚 neck, no, the animal may not go out with it. Therefore, that statement of Rav Shmuel bar Rav Yehuda teaches us that the mules of the house of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi went out on Shabbat with their reins wrapped around their necks.

讜诪讝讬谉 注诇讬讛谉 讜讟讜讘诇谉 讘诪拽讜诪谉: 诇诪讬诪专讗 讚讘谞讬 拽讘讜诇讬 讟讜诪讗讛 谞讬谞讛讜 讜讛转谞谉 讟讘注转 讗讚诐 讟诪讗讛 讜讟讘注转 讘讛诪讛 讜讻诇讬诐 讜砖讗专 讻诇 讛讟讘注讜转

It was further taught in our mishna: If these chains contracted ritual impurity, one may sprinkle water of purification on them and immerse them in their place on the animal. The Gemara asks: Is that to say that these chains are fit to contract ritual impurity? Didn鈥檛 we learn in a mishna: A ring worn by a person is ritually impure. However, the ring of an animal, and rings of utensils, and all other rings not worn by people

讟讛讜专讜转

are ritually pure.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 (谞驻讞讗) 讘讘讗讬谉 诪谞讜讬 讗讚诐 诇谞讜讬 讘讛诪讛

Rabbi Yitz岣k Nappa岣 said: Our mishna is referring to ornaments that were transformed from their original designation for a person鈥檚 adornment to an ornament designated for an animal鈥檚 adornment. They had once belonged to a person who later affixed them in order to attach a strap to an animal. Their original ritual impurity does not cease when they are attached to the animal.

讜专讘 讬讜住祝 讗诪专 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讗讚诐 诪讜砖讱 讘讛诐 讗转 讛讘讛诪讛 诪讬 诇讗 转谞讬讗 诪拽诇 砖诇 讘讛诪讛 砖诇 诪转讻转 诪拽讘诇 讟讜诪讗讛 诪讛 讟注诐 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讗讚诐 专讜讚讛 讘讛谉 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讗讚诐 诪讜砖讱 讘讛谉:

And Rav Yosef said: Animals鈥 rings can become ritually impure since a person pulls his animal with them. Consequently, they are considered utensils used by people. Wasn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: The metal animal prod becomes ritually impure? What is the reason that it becomes ritually impure even though it is an animal鈥檚 utensil? Since a person subjugates his animal with it, it is regarded as a utensil for use by a person; therefore, it can become ritually impure. Here too, with regard to chains, since a person pulls his animal with them, they are regarded as utensils for use by a person.

讜讟讜讘诇谉 讘诪拽讜诪谉: 讜讛讗讬讻讗 讞爪讬爪讛

And we learned in our mishna: If the animals鈥 chains became ritually impure, one may immerse them while they are in their place on the animal, and they need not first be removed. The Gemara raises a question: Isn鈥檛 this an obstruction that renders the immersion invalid? The rings of the chain are firmly attached to the chain, and there is no room for the water of the ritual bath to completely surround the chain.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诪讬 讘砖专讬转讻谉

Rabbi Ami said: The mishna is referring to a case where he struck the rings of the chain with a hammer, widening them and thereby creating sufficient space to allow the water to surround the chain on all sides.

诇讬诪讗 专讘讬 讗诪讬 讻专讘 讬讜住祝 住讘讬专讗 诇讬讛 讚讗讬 讻专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 (谞驻讞讗) 讚讗诪专 讘讘讗讬谉 诪谞讜讬 讗讚诐 诇谞讜讬 讘讛诪讛 讻讬讜谉 讚专讬转讻谉 注讘讚 讘讛讜 诪注砖讛 讜驻专讞讛 诇讛 讟讜诪讗讛 诪讬谞讬讬讛讜

The Gemara asks: Let us say that Rabbi Ami holds in accordance with the opinion of Rav Yosef. As, if he held in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yitz岣k Nappa岣, who said that our mishna is referring to ornaments that were transformed from their original designation for a person鈥檚 adornment to an ornament designated for an animal鈥檚 adornment, and therefore they can be ritually impure with impurity contracted while it was still a person鈥檚 ornament, it is difficult. Since he struck the chain, he performed an action which altered its identity, and the impurity would have ceased even without immersion.

讚转谞谉 讻诇 讛讻诇讬诐 讬讜专讚讬谉 诇讬讚讬 讟讜诪讗转谉 讘诪讞砖讘讛 讜讗讬谉 注讜诇讬谉 诪讟讜诪讗转谉 讗诇讗 讘砖讬谞讜讬 诪注砖讛

As we learned in a mishna: All vessels descend into their state of ritual impurity by means of thought. Even though an unfinished vessel cannot become ritually impure, if the craftsman decided not to complete it, it immediately assumes the legal status of a completed vessel and can become ritually impure. However, they only ascend from their state of ritual impurity by means of a change resulting from an action. A ritually impure vessel, once it undergoes physical change, is no longer ritually impure. Hammering the rings is an action that effects physical change. Therefore, the chain should be ritually pure without immersion.

住讘专 诇讛 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讚讗诪专 诪注砖讛 诇转拽谉 诇讗讜 诪注砖讛 讛讜讗 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 诇讗 讗诪专 砖讬谞讜讬 诪注砖讛 诇转拽谉 讗诇讗 诇拽诇拽诇

The Gemara rejects this argument: Actually, Rabbi Ami could interpret the mishna just as Rabbi Yitz岣k Nappa岣 did, as he holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, who said that an action performed to enhance a utensil is not an action capable of ridding that utensil of its ritual impurity, as it was taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yehuda said: He did not say that an action that effects a physical change purifies a utensil of its ritual impurity with regard to an action performed to enhance a utensil; rather, he made his statement with regard to an action performed to ruin the utensil.

讘诪转谞讬转讗 转谞讬 讘诪讞讜诇诇讬谉

It was taught in a baraita: The mishna is referring to a case where the rings attached to the chain are well spaced so that the water completely surrounds the rings of the chain with no obstruction.

砖讗诇 转诇诪讬讚 讗讞讚 诪讙诇讬诇 讛注诇讬讜谉 讗转 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 砖诪注转讬 砖讞讜诇拽讬谉 讘讬谉 讟讘注转 诇讟讘注转 讗诪专 诇讜 砖诪讗 诇讗 砖诪注转 讗诇讗 诇注谞讬谉 砖讘转 讚讗讬 诇注谞讬谉 讟讜诪讗讛 讚讗 讜讚讗 讞讚讗 讛讬讗

It was taught in the Tosefta: A certain disciple from the Upper Galilee asked Rabbi Eliezer: I heard that one distinguishes between one type of ring and another type of ring. However, I do not know with regard to what halakha this distinction is made. Rabbi Eliezer said to him: Perhaps you only heard that distinction with regard to the matter of Shabbat; a ring for adornment may be moved on Shabbat and other rings may not. As, with regard to the matter of ritual impurity, this ring and that ring are one and the same, and there is no distinction between them.

讜诇注谞讬谉 讟讜诪讗讛 讚讗 讜讚讗 讗讞转 讛讬讗 讜讛转谞谉 讟讘注转 讗讚诐 讟诪讗讛 讜讟讘注转 讘讛诪讛 讜讻诇讬诐 讜砖讗专 讻诇 讛讟讘注讜转 讟讛讜专讜转 讻讬 拽讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬讛讜 谞诪讬 讚讗讚诐 拽讗诪专 诇讬讛

The Gemara raises an objection: And with regard to the matter of ritual impurity, are this and that one and the same? Didn鈥檛 we learn in a mishna: A ring worn by a person is ritually impure; however, the ring of an animal, and that of utensils, and all other rings not worn by people are ritually pure? Apparently, a distinction is made between different types of rings with regard to the halakhot of ritual impurity as well. The Gemara answers: When Rabbi Eliezer was saying that statement to the disciple, he too was saying to him that with regard to ritual impurity there is no distinction between different types of rings worn by a person.

讜讚讗讚诐 讚讗 讜讚讗 讗讞转 讛讬讗 讜讛转谞讬讗 讟讘注转 砖讛转拽讬谞讛 诇讞讙讜专 讘讛 诪转谞讬讜 讜诇拽砖专 讘讛 讘讬谉 讻转驻讬讜 讟讛讜专讛 讜诇讗 讗诪专讜 讟诪讗讛 讗诇讗 砖诇 讗爪讘注 讘诇讘讚 讻讬 拽讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬讛讜 谞诪讬 讚讗爪讘注 拽讗诪专 诇讬讛

The Gemara raises another objection: And with regard to rings worn by a person, are this and that one and the same? Wasn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: A ring that one fashioned into a buckle at the end of a belt to wear it around his waist, or into a clasp to tie garments between his shoulders, is ritually pure? The Sages only said that a ring is ritually impure with regard to a ring worn on a person鈥檚 finger. Apparently, there is in fact a distinction between different rings worn by a person. The Gemara answers: When Rabbi Eliezer was saying that statement to the disciple, he too was saying to him that there is no distinction between different types of rings worn on a person鈥檚 finger.

讜讚讗爪讘注 讚讗 讜讚讗 讗讞转 讛讬讗 讜讛转谞谉 讟讘注转 砖诇 诪转讻转 讜讞讜转诪讛 砖诇 讗诇诪讜讙 讟诪讗讛 讛讬讗 砖诇 讗诇诪讜讙 讜讞讜转诪讛 砖诇 诪转讻转 讟讛讜专讛 讻讬 拽讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬讛讜 谞诪讬 讻讜诇讛 砖诇 诪转讻转 拽讗诪专 诇讬讛

The Gemara raises yet another objection: And with regard to rings worn on a person鈥檚 finger, are this and that one and the same? Didn鈥檛 we learn in a mishna: A ring made of metal and its seal is made of coral, is ritually impure? The primary component of the ring, metal, is the determining factor, and a metal utensil can become ritually impure. However, a ring that is made of coral and its seal is made of metal is ritually pure. Apparently, there is a distinction between different types of finger rings with regard to ritual impurity. The Gemara answers: When Rabbi Eliezer was saying that statement to the disciple, he too was saying to him that there is no distinction between different types of rings that are made entirely of metal.

讜注讜讚 砖讗诇 砖诪注转讬 砖讞讜诇拽讬谉 讘讬谉 诪讞讟 诇诪讞讟 讗诪专 诇讬讛 砖诪讗 诇讗 砖诪注转 讗诇讗 诇注谞讬谉 砖讘转 讚讗讬 诇注谞讬谉 讟讜诪讗讛 讚讗 讜讚讗 讗讞转 讛讬讗

And furthermore, that same disciple asked: I heard that one distinguishes between one type of needle and another type of needle. Still, I do not know with regard to what halakha this distinction is made. Rabbi Eliezer said to him: Perhaps you only heard that distinction with regard to Shabbat. With regard to the prohibition of carrying from a private to a public domain, or vice versa, there is a distinction between a needle with an eye, for which one is liable to bring a sin-offering, and one without an eye, for which one is not. As, if you were to suggest that the distinction is with regard to ritual impurity, this, a needle with an eye, and that, a needle without an eye, are one and the same, and there is no distinction between them.

讜诇注谞讬谉 讟讜诪讗讛 讚讗 讜讚讗 讗讞转 讛讬讗 讜讛转谞谉 诪讞讟 砖谞讬讟诇 讞讜专讛 讗讜 注讜拽爪讛 讟讛讜专讛 讻讬 拽讗诪专 诇讬讛 讘砖诇讬诪讛

The Gemara raises an objection: And with regard to the matter of ritual impurity, are this and that one and the same? Are all needles alike? Didn鈥檛 we learn in a mishna: A needle whose eye or whose point was removed is ritually pure, as it is no longer fit for use? Apparently, there is a distinction between an intact needle and a broken one with regard to the halakhot of ritual impurity. The Gemara answers: When Rabbi Eliezer was saying that statement to the disciple, he was referring to a whole needle. Indeed, there is no distinction between different types of whole needles with regard to the halakhot of ritual impurity.

讜讘砖诇讬诪讛 讚讗 讜讚讗 讗讞转 讛讬讗 讜讛转谞谉 诪讞讟 砖讛注诇转讛 讞诇讜讚讛 讗诐 诪注讻讘 讗转 讛转驻讬专讛 讟讛讜专讛 讜讗诐 诇讗讜 讟诪讗讛 讜讗诪专讬 讚讘讬 专讘讬 讬谞讗讬 讜讛讜讗 砖专讬砖讜诪讛 谞讬讻专 讻讬 拽讗诪专 诇讬讛 讘砖讬驻讗 拽讗诪专 诇讬讛

The Gemara raises another objection: And with regard to whole needles, are this and that one and the same? Is there no distinction between them? Didn鈥檛 we learn in a mishna: With regard to a needle that became rusty; if the rust inhibits the sewing, the needle is ritually pure; and if it does not inhibit the sewing, it is ritually impure. And the Sages of the school of Rabbi Yannai said: And that is the halakha that the needle cannot become ritually impure not only when it is impossible to push the needle through the fabric, but even when the mark of rusty needle is conspicuous in the stitching. Apparently, there is a distinction between different types of whole needles. The Gemara answers: When Rabbi Eliezer was saying that statement to the disciple, he was saying to him that there is no distinction between different types of needles that were smoothed and filed. He was not referring to rusty needles.

讜讘砖讬驻讗 讚讗 讜讚讗 讗讞转 讛讬讗 讜讛转谞讬讗 诪讞讟 讘讬谉 谞拽讜讘讛 讘讬谉 讗讬谞讛 谞拽讜讘讛 诪讜转专 诇讟诇讟诇讛 讘砖讘转 讜诇讗 讗诪专讬谞谉 谞拽讜讘讛 讗诇讗 诇注谞讬谉 讟讜诪讗讛 讘诇讘讚

The Gemara raises yet another objection: And with regard to smoothed needles, are this and that one and the same? Wasn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: A needle, whether it has an eye and whether it does not have an eye, may be moved on Shabbat? And we only said that a needle with an eye is different with regard to the halakhot of ritual impurity. Apparently, there is a distinction between different types of smoothed needles with regard to the halakhot of ritual impurity.

讛讗 转专讙诪讗 讗讘讬讬 讗诇讬讘讗 讚专讘讗 讘讙诇诪讬:

The Gemara answers: Didn鈥檛 Abaye already interpret that baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rava as referring to unfinished needles? If a needle is unfinished, and it has not been perforated to create an eye, it cannot become ritually impure because it is not yet a utensil. However, if the needle is finished, whether it has an eye and is used for sewing, or it does not have an eye and is used as a pin, it is regarded as a utensil and therefore can become ritually impure.

诪转谞讬壮 讞诪讜专 讬讜爪讗 讘诪专讚注转 讘讝诪谉 砖讛讬讗 拽砖讜专讛 讘讜 讝讻专讬诐 讬讜爪讗讬谉 诇讘讜讘讬谉 专讞诇讜转 讬讜爪讗讜转 砖讞讜讝讜转 讻讘讜诇讜转 讜讻讘讜谞讜转 讛注讝讬诐 讬讜爪讗讜转 爪专讜专讜转 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜住专 讘讻讜诇谉 讞讜抓 诪谉 讛专讞诇讬谉 讛讻讘讜谞讜转

MISHNA: A donkey may go out on Shabbat with a saddlecloth that protects it from the cold when it is tied to the animal, and there is no room for concern lest it fall. Rams may go out levuvin. Ewes may go out she岣zot, kevulot, and kevunot. All of these terms are discussed and explained in the Gemara. She-goats may go out with their udders bound. Rabbi Yosei prohibits the animals from going out with all of these items, as he considers them burdens, except for the ewes that are kevunot.

专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 注讝讬诐 讬讜爪讗讜转 爪专讜专讜转 诇讬讘砖 讗讘诇 诇讗 诇讞诇讘:

Rabbi Yehuda says: Goats may go out on Shabbat with their udders bound to dry their milk supply and discontinue their lactation, in order to facilitate conception. In that case, they are tied with a tight, permanent knot, and there is no concern lest it fall in the public domain. However, they may not go out with their udders bound to conserve their milk, as in that case they are bound loosely.

Scroll To Top