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

Today's Daf Yomi

April 28, 2020 | 讚壮 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 sponsored by Terri Krivosha for the Refuah Shlemah of her husband Harav Hayim Yehuda Ben Faiga Rivah.聽

  • 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 53

In honor of Yom Hazikaron, we will dedicate our learning to all those who have given their lives to the State of Israel. Today’s shiur is also dedicated by聽Cliff and Minna Felig in memory of their aunt Laura Tretin z鈥漧 who recently passed away.

Can an animal walk out with an item that is used to help the animal to prevent discomfort such as a saddlecloth to warm a donkey? This is only allowed if the animal is wearing it from before Shabbat. If the animal is staying in a private domain, can one even place thesaddlecloth on Shabbat? Is a basket meant for food allowed? Or a saddle? How do each of these cases differ? Can animals walk around in the public thoroughfare on Shabbat with amulets? How are amulet’s different for humans and for animals? Can聽 a she-goat go out with bound udders? Some stories are brought regarding a man whose breasts filled up with milk and a woman without a hand whose husband was unaware of it until her death. What is the meaning of “levuvim” in the mishna that is permitted for males to go out wearing? Three explanations are brought.

讙诪壮 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讜讛讜讗 砖拽砖讜专讛 诇讜 诪注专讘 砖讘转 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 诪转谞讬转讬谉 谞诪讬 讚讬拽讗 讚拽转谞讬 讗讬谉 讛讞诪讜专 讬讜爪讗 讘诪专讚注转 讘讝诪谉 砖讗讬谞讛 拽砖讜专讛 诇讜

GEMARA: Shmuel said: And with regard to the halakha taught in our mishna that a donkey may go out on Shabbat with its saddlecloth, that only applies to a case where it was tied to the animal from Shabbat eve. Rav Na岣an said: The wording of our mishna is also precise in support of Shmuel鈥檚 statement, as it teaches later in the chapter: A donkey may not go out into the public domain on Shabbat with its saddlecloth when it is not tied to its back.

讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗讬诇讬诪讗 砖讗讬谞讛 拽砖讜专讛 诇讜 讻诇诇 驻砖讬讟讗 讚讬诇诪讗 谞驻诇讛 诇讬讛 讜讗转讬 诇讗转讜讬讬 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 砖讗讬谞讛 拽砖讜专讛 诪注专讘 砖讘转 诪讻诇诇 讚专讬砖讗 砖拽砖讜专讛 诇讜 诪注专讘 砖讘转 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛

The Gemara clarifies the meaning of that mishna: What are the circumstances? If you say that the later mishna is referring to a case where the saddlecloth is not tied to the animal at all, that is obvious. There is concern lest the saddlecloth fall from the animal and its owner will come to bring it and carry it four cubits in the public domain. Rather, is it not referring to a case where the saddlecloth is presently tied to the animal, but it was not tied from Shabbat eve? By inference, conclude that the first clause, i.e., our mishna, which permits the animal to go out with its saddlecloth, is referring to a case where the saddlecloth was tied to the animal from Shabbat eve. The Gemara concludes: Indeed, conclude from it that this is the correct understanding.

转谞讬讗 谞诪讬 讛讻讬 讞诪讜专 讬讜爪讗 讘诪专讚注转 讘讝诪谉 砖拽砖讜专讛 诇讜 诪注专讘 砖讘转 讜诇讗 讘讗讜讻祝 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖拽砖讜专讛 诇讜 诪注专讘 砖讘转 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讜诪专 讗祝 讘讗讜讻祝 讘讝诪谉 砖拽砖讜专讛 诇讜 诪注专讘 砖讘转 讜讘诇讘讚 砖诇讗 讬拽砖讜专 诇讜 诪住专讬讻谉 讜讘诇讘讚 砖诇讗 讬驻砖讜诇 诇讜 专爪讜注讛 转讞转 讝谞讘讜

That was also taught in a baraita: A donkey may go out on Shabbat with its saddlecloth when it was tied to the animal from Shabbat eve, and it may not go out with the saddle, even though it was tied to the animal from Shabbat eve. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: The donkey may even go out with its saddle when it was tied to the animal from Shabbat eve, provided that he does not tie the strap with which the saddle is fastened around the donkey鈥檚 belly, and provided that he does not pass a strap under the animal鈥檚 tail, which is standard procedure when placing a burden on the animal.

讘注讗 诪讬谞讬讛 专讘 讗住讬 讘专 谞转谉 诪专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 专讘 讗砖讬 诪讛讜 诇讬转谉 诪专讚注转 注诇 讙讘讬 讞诪讜专 讘砖讘转 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪讜转专 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讜讻讬 诪讛 讘讬谉 讝讛 诇讗讜讻祝 讗讬砖转讬拽

Rav Asi bar Natan raised a dilemma before Rabbi 岣yya bar Rav Ashi: What is the halakha with regard to placing a saddlecloth on a donkey on Shabbat in a private domain in order to warm the donkey with no intention to take it into the public domain? Rabbi 岣yya bar Ashi said to him: It is permitted. Rav Asi bar Natan said to him: What is the difference between this and a saddle, which may not be moved on Shabbat? Rabbi 岣yya bar Ashi remained silent and did not answer.

讗讬转讬讘讬讛 讗讜讻祝 砖注诇 讙讘讬 讞诪讜专 诇讗 讬讟诇讟诇谞讛 讘讬讚讜 讗诇讗 诪讜诇讬讻讛 讜诪讘讬讗讛 讘讞爪专 讜讛讜讗 谞讜驻诇 诪讗讬诇讬讜 讛砖转讗 诇讬讟讜诇 讗诪专转 诇讗 诇讛谞讬讞 诪讬讘注讬讗

Rav Asi bar Natan thought that Rabbi 岣yya was of the opinion that even a saddle may be placed on a donkey on Shabbat. He, therefore, raised an objection from a baraita: A saddle that is on a donkey on Shabbat, and its owner wishes to remove it, he may not move it with his hand to remove it; rather, he walks the animal back and forth in the courtyard, and the saddle falls on its own. Now even with regard to removing a saddle that is already on the animal鈥檚 back, you said no, one may not move it; is prohibiting one from placing the saddle on the animal necessary?

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 砖讘拽讬讛 讻专讘讬讛 住讘讬专讗 诇讬讛 讚讗诪专 专讘 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗砖讬 讗诪专 专讘 转讜诇讬谉 讟专住拽诇 诇讘讛诪讛 讘砖讘转 讜拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 诇诪专讚注转 讜诪讛 讛转诐 讚诪砖讜诐 转注谞讜讙 砖专讬 讛讻讗 讚诪砖讜诐 爪注专 诇讗 讻诇 砖讻谉

Rabbi Zeira said to Rav Asi: Leave Rabbi 岣yya, and do not raise an objection to his statement, as he agrees with his teacher. As Rav 岣yya bar Ashi said that Rav said: One may hang a basket with fodder around the neck of an animal on Shabbat, and by means of an a fortiori inference, derive that one may place a saddlecloth on an animal鈥檚 back on Shabbat. What is the a fortiori inference? Just as there, placing the basket of fodder so that the animal can eat without bending down, which is done for the animal鈥檚 pleasure, is permitted; here, placing the saddlecloth, which is done to prevent the animal from suffering from the cold, all the more so should be permitted.

砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 诪专讚注转 诪讜转专 讟专住拽诇 讗住讜专 讗讝诇 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讬讜住祝 讗诪专讛 诇砖诪注转讗 讚专讘 拽诪讬讛 讚砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬 讛讻讬 讗诪专 讗讘讗 诇讗 讬讚注 讘诪讬诇讬 讚砖讘转讗 讜诇讗 讻诇讜诐

Shmuel said: A saddlecloth is permitted; however, a basket with fodder is prohibited. Rabbi 岣yya bar Yosef went and said the halakha of Rav before Shmuel. Shmuel said to him: If Abba, Rav, actually said that, he knows nothing at all about matters of Shabbat.

讻讬 住诇讬拽 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讗砖讻讞讬讛 诇专讘讬 讘谞讬诪讬谉 讘专 讬驻转 讚讬转讬讘 讜拽讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 谞讜转谞讬谉 诪专讚注转 注诇 讙讘讬 讞诪讜专 讘砖讘转 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讬讬砖专 讜讻谉 转专讙诪讛 讗专讬讜讱 讘讘讘诇

When Rabbi Zeira ascended to Eretz Yisrael he found Rabbi Binyamin bar Yefet who sat and said to him in the name of Rabbi Yo岣nan: One may place a saddlecloth on a donkey on Shabbat. Rabbi Zeira said to him: You have spoken well, and Aryokh explained the matter likewise in Babylonia.

讗专讬讜讱 诪谞讜 砖诪讜讗诇 讜讛讗 专讘 谞诪讬 讗诪专讛 讗诇讗 砖诪注讬讛 讚讛讜讛 诪住讬讬诐 讘讬讛 讜讗讬谉 转讜诇讬谉 讟专住拽诇 讘砖讘转 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讬讬砖专 讜讻谉 转专讙诪讛 讗专讬讜讱 讘讘讘诇

The Gemara asks: Who is Aryokh? It is Shmuel. Didn鈥檛 Rav also say that one may place a saddlecloth on a donkey on Shabbat? With regard to a saddlecloth they agree. Why then did Rabbi Zeira attribute the ruling specifically to Shmuel? Rather, he heard Rabbi Binyamin bar Yefet conclude: However, one may not hang a basket with fodder around the neck of an animal on Shabbat. It was that part of the statement that led him to say: You have spoken well, and Aryokh explained the matter likewise in Babylonia.

讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 诪讬讛转 诪专讚注转 诪讜转专 诪讗讬 砖谞讗 诪讗讜讻祝 砖讗谞讬 讛转诐 讚讗驻砖专 讚谞驻讬诇 诪诪讬诇讗

The Gemara continues: In any case, everyone agrees that a saddlecloth is permitted. The question arises: How is a saddlecloth different from a saddle, which may not even be removed from the donkey? If the concern is for the animal鈥檚 suffering, why is it not permitted to remove the saddle? The Gemara answers: It is different there, as it is possible for the saddle to fall on its own. Therefore, there is no reason to permit its removal by hand.

专讘 驻驻讗 讗诪专 讻讗谉 诇讞诪诪讛 讻讗谉 诇爪谞谞讛 诇讞诪诪讛 讗讬转 诇讛 爪注专讗 诇爪谞谞讛 诇讬转 诇讛 爪注专讗 讜讛讬讬谞讜 讚讗诪专讬 讗讬谞砖讬 讞诪专讗 讗驻讬诇讜 讘转拽讜驻转 转诪讜讝 拽专讬专讗 诇讛

Rav Pappa said: There is a distinction between the two cases: Here, where the Sages permitted placing a saddlecloth on a donkey on Shabbat, it is to warm the animal. There, where the Sages prohibited removing a saddle, it is to cool the animal. Placing the saddlecloth to warm the animal is permitted because otherwise it experiences discomfort from the cold. However, removing the saddle to cool the animal is prohibited because the animal does not experience discomfort from excessive heat. And that is the folk saying that people say: A donkey, even in the summer season of Tammuz, is cold. Therefore, seeing to the animal鈥檚 warmth is more important.

诪讬转讬讘讬 诇讗 讬爪讗 讛住讜住 讘讝谞讘 砖讜注诇 讜诇讗 讘讝讛专讜专讬转 砖讘讬谉 注讬谞讬讜 诇讗 讬爪讗 讛讝讘 讘讻讬住 砖诇讜 讜诇讗 注讝讬诐 讘讻讬住 砖讘讚讚讬讛谉 讜诇讗 驻专讛 讘讞住讜诐 砖讘驻讬讛 讜诇讗 住讬讬讞讬诐 讘讟专住拽诇讬谉 砖讘驻讬讛诐 诇专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讜诇讗 讘讛诪讛 讘住谞讚诇 砖讘专讙诇讬讛 讜诇讗 讘拽诪讬注 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讛讜讗 诪讜诪讞讛 讜讝讜 讞讜诪专 讘讘讛诪讛 诪讘讗讚诐

The Gemara raises an objection from the Tosefta to those who prohibit placing a basket with fodder around an animal鈥檚 neck on Shabbat: A horse may neither go out into the public domain on Shabbat with a fox鈥檚 tail that is placed as a talisman to ward off the evil eye nor with a string of red wool that is hung between its eyes as an ornament. Neither may a zav go out with his pouch that prevents his clothes from becoming sullied from his emissions, nor goats with a pouch that is on their udders so that they will not be scratched by stones, nor a cow with the muzzle that is on its mouth, nor foals with baskets of fodder that are around their mouths into the public domain. And an animal may neither go out with metal shoes that are on its feet, nor with an amulet that is placed on the animal to promote its good health, even if the amulet has proven effective. And this is a stricture that applies to animals beyond the strictures that apply to people, as a person is permitted to go out into the public domain with an amulet that has proved effective.

讗讘诇 讬讜爪讗 讛讜讗 讘讗讙讚 砖注诇 讙讘讬 讛诪讻讛 讜讘拽砖讬砖讬谉 砖注诇 讙讘讬 讛砖讘专 讜讘砖讬诇讬讗 讛诪讚讜诇讚诇转 讘讛 讜驻讜拽拽讬谉 诇讛 讝讜讙 讘爪讜讗专讛 讜诪讟讬讬诇转 注诪讜 讘讞爪专

However, an animal may go out with a bandage that is on a wound, and with splints that are on a broken bone so that it will heal properly, and with the afterbirth hanging from its womb. And one may plug the bell hanging from an animal鈥檚 neck to prevent it from ringing, and then the animal may walk with it in the courtyard, which is a private domain, but not in a public domain.

拽转谞讬 诪讬讛转 讜诇讗 住讬讬讞讬谉 讘讟专住拽诇讬诐 砖讘驻讬讛诐 诇专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 诇专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讛讜讗 讚诇讗 讛讗 讘讞爪专 砖驻讬专 讚诪讬 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讘讙讚讜诇讬诐 讜诪砖讜诐 转注谞讜讙

In any case, it is taught here: Nor foals with baskets of fodder that are around their mouths into the public domain. By inference: It is specifically into the public domain that they may not go with fodder baskets in their mouths; however, in a courtyard, they may well walk with a basket of fodder. What? Is it not referring to large foals around whose necks fodder baskets are hung for their pleasure?

诇讗 讘拽讟谞讬诐 讜诪砖讜诐 爪注专 讚讬拽讗 谞诪讬 讚拽转谞讬

The Gemara answers: No, it is referring to small foals, and the baskets are hung to prevent their discomfort. The legs of a young foal are long and its neck is short. Consequently, eating from the ground is difficult. Hanging the fodder basket around its neck enables it to eat without bending down. The Gemara adds: This is also precise in the language of the Tosefta, as it teaches the case of the foals

讚讜诪讬讗 讚拽诪讬注 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛:

similar to the case of an amulet worn for healing purposes. The Gemara concludes: Indeed, learn from it that this is the correct understanding.

讗诪专 诪专 讜诇讗 讘拽诪讬注 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讛讜讗 诪讜诪讞讛 讜讛讗 讗谞谉 转谞谉 讜诇讗 讘拽诪讬注 砖讗讬谞讜 诪讜诪讞讛 讛讗 诪讜诪讞讛 砖驻讬专 讚诪讬 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 砖讗讬谞讜 诪讜诪讞讛

The Gemara further examines the baraita cited earlier. The Master said: Nor may an animal go out with an amulet on Shabbat, even if the amulet proved effective. The Gemara asks: Didn鈥檛 we learn in a mishna: One may not go out on Shabbat with an amulet that has not proved effective? By inference: If the amulet proved effective, he may well do so. The Gemara answers: Here too, it is referring to an amulet that has not proved effective.

讜讛讗 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讛讜讗 诪讜诪讞讛 拽转谞讬 诪讜诪讞讛 诇讗讚诐 讜讗讬谞讜 诪讜诪讞讛 诇讘讛诪讛 讜诪讬 讗讬讻讗 诪讜诪讞讛 诇讗讚诐 讜诇讗 讛讜讬 诪讜诪讞讛 诇讘讛诪讛 讗讬谉 讗讚诐 讚讗讬转 诇讬讛 诪讝诇讗 诪住讬讬注 诇讬讛 讘讛诪讛 讚诇讬转 诇讛 诪讝诇讗 诇讗 诪住讬讬注 诇讛

The Gemara asks: Doesn鈥檛 the baraita teach: Even if the amulet proved effective? The Gemara answers: The baraita is referring to an amulet that proved effective for a person, and did not prove effective for an animal. The Gemara wonders: Is there an amulet that proved effective for a person and is not effective for an animal? Healing an animal should be easier than healing a person. The Gemara answers: Yes, an amulet aids a person, who is under the protection of an advocate angel [mazal]; however, it does not aid an animal, which is not under the protection of an advocate angel.

讗讬 讛讻讬 诪讗讬 讝讛 讞讜诪专 讘讘讛诪讛 诪讘讗讚诐 诪讬 住讘专转 讗拽诪讬注 拽讗讬 讗住谞讚诇 拽讗讬

The Gemara poses a question: If so, that the baraita is referring to an amulet that did not prove effective for an animal, but if the amulet proved effective, the animal may indeed go out into the public domain with it; what is the meaning of the phrase in the Tosefta: And this is a stricture that applies to animals beyond the strictures that apply to people? The halakha is the same with regard to both people and animals. If the amulet has proven effective, even an animal may go out with it on Shabbat. If it has not proven effective, even a person may not go out with it. The Gemara responds: Do you hold that this statement is referring to an amulet? It is referring to a shoe; an animal may not go out with a shoe on Shabbat, but a person may.

转讗 砖诪注 住讻讬谉 讜诪驻专讻住讬谉 诇讗讚诐 讜讗讬谉 住讻讬谉 讜诪驻专讻住讬谉 诇讘讛诪讛 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讚讗讬讻讗 诪讻讛 讜诪砖讜诐 爪注专 诇讗 讚讙诪专 诪讻讛 讜诪砖讜诐 转注谞讜讙

With regard to whether and to what extent the discomfort of animals is a factor taken into consideration on Shabbat, the Gemara says: Come and hear that which was taught in a baraita: One may smear on oil and scrape off a scab on Shabbat for a person, and one may not smear on oil and scrape off a scab for an animal. Is it not referring here to a case where there is a wound, and he smears on oil and scrapes the scab due to the discomfort caused by the wound, and nevertheless it was permitted exclusively for a person and not for an animal? The Gemara rejects this argument: No, it is referring to a case where the wound has already ceased and healed, and he smears oil and scrapes due to the pleasure caused by the treatment.

转讗 砖诪注 讘讛诪讛 砖讗讞讝讛 讚诐 讗讬谉 诪注诪讬讚讬谉 讗讜转讛 讘诪讬诐 讘砖讘讬诇 砖转爪讟谞谉 讗讚诐 砖讗讞讝讜 讚诐 诪注诪讬讚讬谉 讗讜转讜 讘诪讬诐 讘砖讘讬诇 砖讬爪讟谞谉 讗诪专 注讜诇讗 讙讝讬专讛 诪砖讜诐 砖讞讬拽转 住诪诪谞讬谉

The Gemara cites an additional proof: Come and hear that which was taught in the following baraita: With regard to an animal suffering from heart congestion that restricts its blood supply and whose temperature has risen, one may not stand it in water so that it will cool off. However, with regard to a person suffering from heart congestion that restricts his blood supply, one may stand him in water so that he will cool off. Apparently, the suffering of an animal is of no concern. Ulla said: Here, the Sages issued a decree prohibiting all healing on Shabbat due to the crushing of herbs for medicinal purposes, which is prohibited by Torah law. The Sages prohibited cooling the animal in water lest one come to grind the ingredients used in the preparation of medicine.

讗讬 讛讻讬 讗讚诐 谞诪讬 讗讚诐 谞专讗讛 讻诪讬拽专

If so, the same decree should also apply in the case of a person. It should be prohibited to stand a sick person in water to cool him off due to the rabbinic prohibition against engaging in healing on Shabbat. The Gemara answers: In the case of a person, it appears as if he entered the water merely to cool off, not necessarily to cure an illness.

讗讬 讛讻讬 讘讛诪讛 谞诪讬 谞专讗讛 讻诪讬拽专 讗讬谉 诪讬拽专 诇讘讛诪讛

The Gemara asks: If so, say in the case of an animal as well that it appears as if it entered the water merely to cool off, not necessarily to cure an illness. The Gemara answers: An animal does not typically enter the water on its own to cool off. Neither does one typically stand an animal in water to cool it off unless it serves some healing purpose. Apparently, due to a decree, the Sages were stringent and prohibited standing the animal in water even if it will die as a result.

讜诇讘讛诪讛 诪讬 讙讝专讬谞谉 讜讛转谞讬讗 讛讬转讛 注讜诪讚转 讞讜抓 诇转讞讜诐 拽讜专讗 诇讛 讜讛讬讗 讘讗讛 讜诇讗 讙讝专讬谞谉 讚讬诇诪讗 讗转讬 诇讗转讜讬讬

The Gemara now asks: Do we really issue a decree for an animal? Wasn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: If an animal were standing beyond the Shabbat limit, a situation in which it is prohibited to go fetch it, he may call the animal and it will come to him on its own? And we do not issue a decree to prohibit calling the animal, lest he come to bring it himself. Apparently, the Sages did not issue a decree in a case where one could incur a loss and there is no actual transgression committed. Here too, it should not be prohibited to stand his animal in water due to a decree lest he come to grind herbs and thereby violate a Torah prohibition.

讜讗诪专 专讘讬谞讗 讻讙讜谉 砖讛讬讛 转讞讜诐 砖诇讛 诪讜讘诇注 讘转讜讱 转讞讜诐 砖诇讜

And Ravina said: No proof can be cited from this case, as here it is a situation where the animal鈥檚 Shabbat limit was subsumed within the limit of its owner. The animal strayed beyond its own Shabbat limit, which is determined by the Shabbat limit of the shepherd entrusted with its herding. However, the animal remained within the Shabbat limit of its owner, which extended beyond that of the shepherd. Consequently, the owner is permitted to call the animal so that it will return on its own. Even if he forgets and goes out to fetch the animal, he will not have gone beyond his Shabbat limit. The fact that the animal itself went beyond its Shabbat limit is of no concern.

专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 讗诪专 砖讞讬拽转 住诪诪谞讬谉 讙讜驻讛 转谞讗讬 讛讬讗 讚转谞讬讗 讘讛诪讛 砖讗讻诇讛 讻专砖讬谞讬谉 诇讗 讬专讬爪谞讛 讘讞爪专 讘砖讘讬诇 砖转转专驻讛 讜专讘讬 讗讜砖注讬讗 诪转讬专 讚专砖 专讘讗 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 讗讜砖注讬讗:

Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k said: The matter of the decree due to crushing herbs is itself subject to a dispute between the tanna鈥檌m. As it was taught in a baraita: In the case of an animal that ate vetch, which caused a life-threatening case of constipation, one may not run it around in the courtyard to loosen its bowels due to the decree prohibiting healing. Rabbi Oshaya deems it permitted. Apparently, the tanna鈥檌m disagree whether or not healing is prohibited with regard to animals. The Gemara adds that Rava taught: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Oshaya.

讗诪专 诪专 诇讗 讬爪讗 讛讝讘 讘讻讬住 砖诇讜 讜诇讗 注讝讬诐 讘讻讬住 砖讘讚讚讬讛谉 讜讛转谞讬讗 讬讜爪讗讜转 注讝讬诐 讘讻讬住 砖讘讚讚讬讛谉

The Master said: Neither may a zav go out with his pouch, which prevents his clothes from becoming sullied by his emissions, nor goats with the pouch that is on their udders. The Gemara asks: Wasn鈥檛 it taught in a different baraita: Goats may go out with the pouch that is on their udders?

讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 讚诪讬讛讚拽 讛讗 讚诇讗 诪讬讛讚拽

Rav Yehuda said: This is not difficult. This baraita is referring to a pouch that is tied tightly to the udder. It is permitted because there is no concern that the pouch will fall. That baraita is referring to a pouch that is not tightly tied. It is prohibited because of the concern that the pouch will fall and a person will come to retrieve it.

专讘 讬讜住祝 讗诪专 转谞讗讬 砖拽诇转 诪注诇诪讗 转谞讗讬 讛讬讗 讚转谞谉 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 讘讻诇谉 讞讜抓 诪谉 讛专讞讬诇讜转 讛讻讘讜谞讜转 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 诇讬讞诇讘

Rav Yosef said: Have you removed the tanna鈥檌m from the world? This is subject to a disagreement between the tanna鈥檌m, as we learned in our mishna: She-goats may go out with their udders bound. Rabbi Yosei 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. 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, as in that case, they are tied with a tight, permanent knot. However, they may not go out with their udders bound to conserve the milk, as in that case they are bound loosely. Apparently, there are tanna鈥檌m who rule leniently with regard to attaching pouches to the udders of goats and permit the practice, and others prohibit doing so.

讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讛讗 讜讛讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讻讗谉 诇讬讘砖 讻讗谉 诇讬讞诇讘

And if you wish, say instead: Both this baraita and that baraita were taught in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, and nevertheless it is not difficult. Here, where the goats are permitted to go out with a pouch on their udders, the baraita is referring to a case where it was done to dry their milk supply. There, where goats are prohibited to do so, the baraita is referring to a case where it was done to conserve the milk.

转谞讬讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诪注砖讛 讘注讝讬诐 讘讬转 讗谞讟讜讻讬讗 砖讛讬讜 讚讚讬讛谉 讙住讬谉 讜注砖讜 诇讛谉 讻讬住讬谉 讻讚讬 砖诇讗 讬住专讟讜 讚讚讬讛谉:

The Gemara adds: It was taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda said: There was an incident involving the goats belonging to the residents of a house in Antioch whose udders were especially large and they would drag along the ground. And they made pouches for them so that their udders would not get scratched.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 诪注砖讛 讘讗讞讚 砖诪转讛 讗砖转讜 讜讛谞讬讞讛 讘谉 诇讬谞拽 讜诇讗 讛讬讛 诇讜 砖讻专 诪谞讬拽讛 诇讬转谉 讜谞注砖讛 诇讜 谞住 讜谞驻转讞讜 诇讜 讚讚讬谉 讻砖谞讬 讚讚讬 讗砖讛 讜讛谞讬拽 讗转 讘谞讜

The Gemara cites a related baraita in which the Sages taught: There was an incident where one man鈥檚 wife died, and she left him a son to nurse, and he did not have money to pay the wages of a wet-nurse. And a miracle was performed on his behalf, and he developed breasts like the two breasts of a woman, and he nursed his son.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 讘讗 讜专讗讛 讻诪讛 讙讚讜诇 讗讚诐 讝讛 砖谞注砖讛 诇讜 谞住 讻讝讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讗讚专讘讛 讻诪讛 讙专讜注 讗讚诐 讝讛 砖谞砖转谞讜 诇讜 住讚专讬 讘专讗砖讬转

Rav Yosef said: Come and see how great this person is that a miracle of that magnitude was performed on his behalf. Abaye said to him: On the contrary, how dishonorable is this person that the order of creation was altered on his behalf. A miracle was indeed performed on his behalf; however, it was performed in a demeaning and unpleasant manner.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讘讗 讜专讗讛 讻诪讛 拽砖讬诐 诪讝讜谞讜转讬讜 砖诇 讗讚诐 砖谞砖转谞讜 注诇讬讜 住讚专讬 讘专讗砖讬转 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 转讚注 讚诪转专讞讬砖 谞讬住讗 讜诇讗 讗讘专讜 诪讝讜谞讬:

Rav Yehuda added and said: Come and see how difficult it is to provide for a person鈥檚 sustenance. It is so difficult that the order of creation had to be altered on his behalf, which was apparently easier than providing him a source of financial support. Rav Na岣an said: Know that it is so, as miracles are often performed on a person鈥檚 behalf; however, it has not yet happened that food was miraculously created in a person鈥檚 home.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 诪注砖讛 讘讗讚诐 讗讞讚 砖谞砖讗 讗砖讛 讙讬讚诪转 讜诇讗 讛讻讬专 讘讛 注讚 讬讜诐 诪讜转讛 讗诪专 专讘 讘讗 讜专讗讛 讻诪讛 爪谞讜注讛 讗砖讛 讝讜 砖诇讗 讛讻讬专 讘讛 讘注诇讛 讗诪专 诇讜 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讝讜 讚专讻讛 讘讻讱 讗诇讗 讻诪讛 爪谞讜注 讗讚诐 讝讛 砖诇讗 讛讻讬专 讘讗砖转讜:

The Gemara relates another unusual story. The Sages taught: There was an incident involving one man who married a one-armed woman, and he did not realize that she was one-armed until the day that she died. Rav said: Come and see how modest this woman was that her husband did not realize this about her. Rabbi 岣yya said to him: That is typical conduct for her, as a woman typically covers herself. All the more so a one-armed woman makes sure to cover her defect. Rather, say: How modest was this man that he did not recognize this in his wife.

讝讻专讬诐 讬讜爪讗讬谉 诇讘讜讘讬谉: 诪讗讬 诇讘讜讘讬谉 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 转讜转专讬 诪讗讬 诪砖诪注 讚讛讗讬 诇讘讜讘讬谉 诇讬砖谞讗 讚拽专讜讘讬 讛讜讗 讚讻转讬讘 诇讘讘转谞讬 讗讞讜转讬 讻诇讛

We learned in our mishna: Rams may go out levuvin. The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of levuvin? Rav Huna said: Tied [tutri] in pairs. The Gemara explains: From where may it be inferred that this word levuvin is a term of closeness? As it is written: 鈥淵ou have drawn me near [libavtini], my sister my bride鈥 (Song of Songs 4:9).

注讜诇讗 讗诪专 注讜专 砖拽讜砖专讬谉 诇讛诐 讻谞讙讚 诇讘诐 讻讚讬 砖诇讗 讬驻诇讜 注诇讬讛谉 讝讗讘讬诐 讝讗讘讬诐 讗讝讻专讬诐 谞驻诇讬 讗谞拽讬讘讜转 诇讗 谞驻诇讬 诪砖讜诐 讚诪住讙讜 讘专讬砖 注讚专讗 讜讝讗讘讬谉 讘专讬砖 注讚专讗 谞驻诇讬 讘住讜祝 注讚专讗 诇讗 谞驻诇讬 讗诇讗 诪砖讜诐 讚砖诪谞讬 讜讘谞拽讘讜转 诇讬讻讗 砖诪谞讬 讜转讜 诪讬 讬讚注讬 讘讬谉 讛谞讬 诇讛谞讬 讗诇讗 诪砖讜诐 讚讝拽驻讬 讞讜讟诪讬讬讛讜 讜诪住讙讜 讻讬 讚讜讜

Ulla said: Levuvin refers to animal hide that one ties over the hearts [lev] of rams so that wolves will not attack them. The Gemara asks: Do wolves attack rams but do not attack ewes? Why is this protection provided only to males? The Gemara answers: Because the males walk at the head of the flock. The Gemara asks: Do wolves attack the head of the flock but not the rear of the flock? Rather, the wolves prey specifically on the rams because they are plump. The Gemara asks: Are there no plump ones among the ewes? And furthermore, do the wolves know how to distinguish between these, the plump ones, and those, the thin ones? Rather, the wolves prey specifically on the rams because they raise their noses and walk while looking to both sides. The wolves think that they are preparing to attack them.

专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 讗诪专 注讜专 砖拽讜砖专讬谉 诇讛谉 转讞转 讝讻专讜转谉 讻讚讬 砖诇讗 讬注诇讜 注诇 讛谞拽讘讜转 诪诪讗讬 诪讚拽转谞讬 住讬驻讗 讜讛专讞诇讬诐 讬讜爪讗讜转 砖讞讜讝讜转 诪讗讬 砖讞讜讝讜转 砖讗讜讞讝讬谉 讛讗诇讬讛 砖诇讛谉 诇诪注诇讛 讻讚讬 砖讬注诇讜 注诇讬讛谉 讝讻专讬诐 专讬砖讗 讻讚讬 砖诇讗 讬注诇讜 注诇 讛谞拽讘讜转 讜住讬驻讗 讻讚讬 砖讬注诇讜 注诇讬讛谉 讝讻专讬诐

Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k said: Levuvin refers to animal hide that one ties under their male organ so that they will not mount the females. And from where do we derive that meaning? Because the latter clause states: Ewes may go out she岣zot. What is the meaning of she岣zot? It means that they fasten [she鈥檕岣zin] their tails with animal hide so that the males may mount them more easily. It is reasonable to explain that the first clause refers to an action undertaken so that the males will not mount the females, and the latter clause to an action undertaken so that the males will mount them.

诪讗讬 诪砖诪注 讚讛讗讬 砖讞讜讝讜转 诇讬砖谞讗 讚讙诇讜讬讬 讛讜讗 讚讻转讬讘 讜讛谞讛 讗砖讛 诇拽专讗转讜

The Gemara asks: From where may it be inferred that this word she岣zot is a term of exposure? The Gemara answers: As it is written in the description of a wicked woman: 鈥淎nd behold there met him a woman

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 sponsored by Terri Krivosha for the Refuah Shlemah of her husband Harav Hayim Yehuda Ben Faiga Rivah.聽

  • 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 53: Why Coffee Is Allowed on Shabbat (a good thing, too)

First, the distinction between medicine for a person as compared to an animal; next, no medicine on Shabbat at all....

Shabbat 53

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Shabbat 53

讙诪壮 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讜讛讜讗 砖拽砖讜专讛 诇讜 诪注专讘 砖讘转 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 诪转谞讬转讬谉 谞诪讬 讚讬拽讗 讚拽转谞讬 讗讬谉 讛讞诪讜专 讬讜爪讗 讘诪专讚注转 讘讝诪谉 砖讗讬谞讛 拽砖讜专讛 诇讜

GEMARA: Shmuel said: And with regard to the halakha taught in our mishna that a donkey may go out on Shabbat with its saddlecloth, that only applies to a case where it was tied to the animal from Shabbat eve. Rav Na岣an said: The wording of our mishna is also precise in support of Shmuel鈥檚 statement, as it teaches later in the chapter: A donkey may not go out into the public domain on Shabbat with its saddlecloth when it is not tied to its back.

讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗讬诇讬诪讗 砖讗讬谞讛 拽砖讜专讛 诇讜 讻诇诇 驻砖讬讟讗 讚讬诇诪讗 谞驻诇讛 诇讬讛 讜讗转讬 诇讗转讜讬讬 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 砖讗讬谞讛 拽砖讜专讛 诪注专讘 砖讘转 诪讻诇诇 讚专讬砖讗 砖拽砖讜专讛 诇讜 诪注专讘 砖讘转 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛

The Gemara clarifies the meaning of that mishna: What are the circumstances? If you say that the later mishna is referring to a case where the saddlecloth is not tied to the animal at all, that is obvious. There is concern lest the saddlecloth fall from the animal and its owner will come to bring it and carry it four cubits in the public domain. Rather, is it not referring to a case where the saddlecloth is presently tied to the animal, but it was not tied from Shabbat eve? By inference, conclude that the first clause, i.e., our mishna, which permits the animal to go out with its saddlecloth, is referring to a case where the saddlecloth was tied to the animal from Shabbat eve. The Gemara concludes: Indeed, conclude from it that this is the correct understanding.

转谞讬讗 谞诪讬 讛讻讬 讞诪讜专 讬讜爪讗 讘诪专讚注转 讘讝诪谉 砖拽砖讜专讛 诇讜 诪注专讘 砖讘转 讜诇讗 讘讗讜讻祝 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖拽砖讜专讛 诇讜 诪注专讘 砖讘转 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讜诪专 讗祝 讘讗讜讻祝 讘讝诪谉 砖拽砖讜专讛 诇讜 诪注专讘 砖讘转 讜讘诇讘讚 砖诇讗 讬拽砖讜专 诇讜 诪住专讬讻谉 讜讘诇讘讚 砖诇讗 讬驻砖讜诇 诇讜 专爪讜注讛 转讞转 讝谞讘讜

That was also taught in a baraita: A donkey may go out on Shabbat with its saddlecloth when it was tied to the animal from Shabbat eve, and it may not go out with the saddle, even though it was tied to the animal from Shabbat eve. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: The donkey may even go out with its saddle when it was tied to the animal from Shabbat eve, provided that he does not tie the strap with which the saddle is fastened around the donkey鈥檚 belly, and provided that he does not pass a strap under the animal鈥檚 tail, which is standard procedure when placing a burden on the animal.

讘注讗 诪讬谞讬讛 专讘 讗住讬 讘专 谞转谉 诪专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 专讘 讗砖讬 诪讛讜 诇讬转谉 诪专讚注转 注诇 讙讘讬 讞诪讜专 讘砖讘转 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪讜转专 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讜讻讬 诪讛 讘讬谉 讝讛 诇讗讜讻祝 讗讬砖转讬拽

Rav Asi bar Natan raised a dilemma before Rabbi 岣yya bar Rav Ashi: What is the halakha with regard to placing a saddlecloth on a donkey on Shabbat in a private domain in order to warm the donkey with no intention to take it into the public domain? Rabbi 岣yya bar Ashi said to him: It is permitted. Rav Asi bar Natan said to him: What is the difference between this and a saddle, which may not be moved on Shabbat? Rabbi 岣yya bar Ashi remained silent and did not answer.

讗讬转讬讘讬讛 讗讜讻祝 砖注诇 讙讘讬 讞诪讜专 诇讗 讬讟诇讟诇谞讛 讘讬讚讜 讗诇讗 诪讜诇讬讻讛 讜诪讘讬讗讛 讘讞爪专 讜讛讜讗 谞讜驻诇 诪讗讬诇讬讜 讛砖转讗 诇讬讟讜诇 讗诪专转 诇讗 诇讛谞讬讞 诪讬讘注讬讗

Rav Asi bar Natan thought that Rabbi 岣yya was of the opinion that even a saddle may be placed on a donkey on Shabbat. He, therefore, raised an objection from a baraita: A saddle that is on a donkey on Shabbat, and its owner wishes to remove it, he may not move it with his hand to remove it; rather, he walks the animal back and forth in the courtyard, and the saddle falls on its own. Now even with regard to removing a saddle that is already on the animal鈥檚 back, you said no, one may not move it; is prohibiting one from placing the saddle on the animal necessary?

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 砖讘拽讬讛 讻专讘讬讛 住讘讬专讗 诇讬讛 讚讗诪专 专讘 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗砖讬 讗诪专 专讘 转讜诇讬谉 讟专住拽诇 诇讘讛诪讛 讘砖讘转 讜拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 诇诪专讚注转 讜诪讛 讛转诐 讚诪砖讜诐 转注谞讜讙 砖专讬 讛讻讗 讚诪砖讜诐 爪注专 诇讗 讻诇 砖讻谉

Rabbi Zeira said to Rav Asi: Leave Rabbi 岣yya, and do not raise an objection to his statement, as he agrees with his teacher. As Rav 岣yya bar Ashi said that Rav said: One may hang a basket with fodder around the neck of an animal on Shabbat, and by means of an a fortiori inference, derive that one may place a saddlecloth on an animal鈥檚 back on Shabbat. What is the a fortiori inference? Just as there, placing the basket of fodder so that the animal can eat without bending down, which is done for the animal鈥檚 pleasure, is permitted; here, placing the saddlecloth, which is done to prevent the animal from suffering from the cold, all the more so should be permitted.

砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 诪专讚注转 诪讜转专 讟专住拽诇 讗住讜专 讗讝诇 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讬讜住祝 讗诪专讛 诇砖诪注转讗 讚专讘 拽诪讬讛 讚砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬 讛讻讬 讗诪专 讗讘讗 诇讗 讬讚注 讘诪讬诇讬 讚砖讘转讗 讜诇讗 讻诇讜诐

Shmuel said: A saddlecloth is permitted; however, a basket with fodder is prohibited. Rabbi 岣yya bar Yosef went and said the halakha of Rav before Shmuel. Shmuel said to him: If Abba, Rav, actually said that, he knows nothing at all about matters of Shabbat.

讻讬 住诇讬拽 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讗砖讻讞讬讛 诇专讘讬 讘谞讬诪讬谉 讘专 讬驻转 讚讬转讬讘 讜拽讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 谞讜转谞讬谉 诪专讚注转 注诇 讙讘讬 讞诪讜专 讘砖讘转 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讬讬砖专 讜讻谉 转专讙诪讛 讗专讬讜讱 讘讘讘诇

When Rabbi Zeira ascended to Eretz Yisrael he found Rabbi Binyamin bar Yefet who sat and said to him in the name of Rabbi Yo岣nan: One may place a saddlecloth on a donkey on Shabbat. Rabbi Zeira said to him: You have spoken well, and Aryokh explained the matter likewise in Babylonia.

讗专讬讜讱 诪谞讜 砖诪讜讗诇 讜讛讗 专讘 谞诪讬 讗诪专讛 讗诇讗 砖诪注讬讛 讚讛讜讛 诪住讬讬诐 讘讬讛 讜讗讬谉 转讜诇讬谉 讟专住拽诇 讘砖讘转 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讬讬砖专 讜讻谉 转专讙诪讛 讗专讬讜讱 讘讘讘诇

The Gemara asks: Who is Aryokh? It is Shmuel. Didn鈥檛 Rav also say that one may place a saddlecloth on a donkey on Shabbat? With regard to a saddlecloth they agree. Why then did Rabbi Zeira attribute the ruling specifically to Shmuel? Rather, he heard Rabbi Binyamin bar Yefet conclude: However, one may not hang a basket with fodder around the neck of an animal on Shabbat. It was that part of the statement that led him to say: You have spoken well, and Aryokh explained the matter likewise in Babylonia.

讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 诪讬讛转 诪专讚注转 诪讜转专 诪讗讬 砖谞讗 诪讗讜讻祝 砖讗谞讬 讛转诐 讚讗驻砖专 讚谞驻讬诇 诪诪讬诇讗

The Gemara continues: In any case, everyone agrees that a saddlecloth is permitted. The question arises: How is a saddlecloth different from a saddle, which may not even be removed from the donkey? If the concern is for the animal鈥檚 suffering, why is it not permitted to remove the saddle? The Gemara answers: It is different there, as it is possible for the saddle to fall on its own. Therefore, there is no reason to permit its removal by hand.

专讘 驻驻讗 讗诪专 讻讗谉 诇讞诪诪讛 讻讗谉 诇爪谞谞讛 诇讞诪诪讛 讗讬转 诇讛 爪注专讗 诇爪谞谞讛 诇讬转 诇讛 爪注专讗 讜讛讬讬谞讜 讚讗诪专讬 讗讬谞砖讬 讞诪专讗 讗驻讬诇讜 讘转拽讜驻转 转诪讜讝 拽专讬专讗 诇讛

Rav Pappa said: There is a distinction between the two cases: Here, where the Sages permitted placing a saddlecloth on a donkey on Shabbat, it is to warm the animal. There, where the Sages prohibited removing a saddle, it is to cool the animal. Placing the saddlecloth to warm the animal is permitted because otherwise it experiences discomfort from the cold. However, removing the saddle to cool the animal is prohibited because the animal does not experience discomfort from excessive heat. And that is the folk saying that people say: A donkey, even in the summer season of Tammuz, is cold. Therefore, seeing to the animal鈥檚 warmth is more important.

诪讬转讬讘讬 诇讗 讬爪讗 讛住讜住 讘讝谞讘 砖讜注诇 讜诇讗 讘讝讛专讜专讬转 砖讘讬谉 注讬谞讬讜 诇讗 讬爪讗 讛讝讘 讘讻讬住 砖诇讜 讜诇讗 注讝讬诐 讘讻讬住 砖讘讚讚讬讛谉 讜诇讗 驻专讛 讘讞住讜诐 砖讘驻讬讛 讜诇讗 住讬讬讞讬诐 讘讟专住拽诇讬谉 砖讘驻讬讛诐 诇专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讜诇讗 讘讛诪讛 讘住谞讚诇 砖讘专讙诇讬讛 讜诇讗 讘拽诪讬注 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讛讜讗 诪讜诪讞讛 讜讝讜 讞讜诪专 讘讘讛诪讛 诪讘讗讚诐

The Gemara raises an objection from the Tosefta to those who prohibit placing a basket with fodder around an animal鈥檚 neck on Shabbat: A horse may neither go out into the public domain on Shabbat with a fox鈥檚 tail that is placed as a talisman to ward off the evil eye nor with a string of red wool that is hung between its eyes as an ornament. Neither may a zav go out with his pouch that prevents his clothes from becoming sullied from his emissions, nor goats with a pouch that is on their udders so that they will not be scratched by stones, nor a cow with the muzzle that is on its mouth, nor foals with baskets of fodder that are around their mouths into the public domain. And an animal may neither go out with metal shoes that are on its feet, nor with an amulet that is placed on the animal to promote its good health, even if the amulet has proven effective. And this is a stricture that applies to animals beyond the strictures that apply to people, as a person is permitted to go out into the public domain with an amulet that has proved effective.

讗讘诇 讬讜爪讗 讛讜讗 讘讗讙讚 砖注诇 讙讘讬 讛诪讻讛 讜讘拽砖讬砖讬谉 砖注诇 讙讘讬 讛砖讘专 讜讘砖讬诇讬讗 讛诪讚讜诇讚诇转 讘讛 讜驻讜拽拽讬谉 诇讛 讝讜讙 讘爪讜讗专讛 讜诪讟讬讬诇转 注诪讜 讘讞爪专

However, an animal may go out with a bandage that is on a wound, and with splints that are on a broken bone so that it will heal properly, and with the afterbirth hanging from its womb. And one may plug the bell hanging from an animal鈥檚 neck to prevent it from ringing, and then the animal may walk with it in the courtyard, which is a private domain, but not in a public domain.

拽转谞讬 诪讬讛转 讜诇讗 住讬讬讞讬谉 讘讟专住拽诇讬诐 砖讘驻讬讛诐 诇专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 诇专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讛讜讗 讚诇讗 讛讗 讘讞爪专 砖驻讬专 讚诪讬 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讘讙讚讜诇讬诐 讜诪砖讜诐 转注谞讜讙

In any case, it is taught here: Nor foals with baskets of fodder that are around their mouths into the public domain. By inference: It is specifically into the public domain that they may not go with fodder baskets in their mouths; however, in a courtyard, they may well walk with a basket of fodder. What? Is it not referring to large foals around whose necks fodder baskets are hung for their pleasure?

诇讗 讘拽讟谞讬诐 讜诪砖讜诐 爪注专 讚讬拽讗 谞诪讬 讚拽转谞讬

The Gemara answers: No, it is referring to small foals, and the baskets are hung to prevent their discomfort. The legs of a young foal are long and its neck is short. Consequently, eating from the ground is difficult. Hanging the fodder basket around its neck enables it to eat without bending down. The Gemara adds: This is also precise in the language of the Tosefta, as it teaches the case of the foals

讚讜诪讬讗 讚拽诪讬注 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛:

similar to the case of an amulet worn for healing purposes. The Gemara concludes: Indeed, learn from it that this is the correct understanding.

讗诪专 诪专 讜诇讗 讘拽诪讬注 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讛讜讗 诪讜诪讞讛 讜讛讗 讗谞谉 转谞谉 讜诇讗 讘拽诪讬注 砖讗讬谞讜 诪讜诪讞讛 讛讗 诪讜诪讞讛 砖驻讬专 讚诪讬 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 砖讗讬谞讜 诪讜诪讞讛

The Gemara further examines the baraita cited earlier. The Master said: Nor may an animal go out with an amulet on Shabbat, even if the amulet proved effective. The Gemara asks: Didn鈥檛 we learn in a mishna: One may not go out on Shabbat with an amulet that has not proved effective? By inference: If the amulet proved effective, he may well do so. The Gemara answers: Here too, it is referring to an amulet that has not proved effective.

讜讛讗 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讛讜讗 诪讜诪讞讛 拽转谞讬 诪讜诪讞讛 诇讗讚诐 讜讗讬谞讜 诪讜诪讞讛 诇讘讛诪讛 讜诪讬 讗讬讻讗 诪讜诪讞讛 诇讗讚诐 讜诇讗 讛讜讬 诪讜诪讞讛 诇讘讛诪讛 讗讬谉 讗讚诐 讚讗讬转 诇讬讛 诪讝诇讗 诪住讬讬注 诇讬讛 讘讛诪讛 讚诇讬转 诇讛 诪讝诇讗 诇讗 诪住讬讬注 诇讛

The Gemara asks: Doesn鈥檛 the baraita teach: Even if the amulet proved effective? The Gemara answers: The baraita is referring to an amulet that proved effective for a person, and did not prove effective for an animal. The Gemara wonders: Is there an amulet that proved effective for a person and is not effective for an animal? Healing an animal should be easier than healing a person. The Gemara answers: Yes, an amulet aids a person, who is under the protection of an advocate angel [mazal]; however, it does not aid an animal, which is not under the protection of an advocate angel.

讗讬 讛讻讬 诪讗讬 讝讛 讞讜诪专 讘讘讛诪讛 诪讘讗讚诐 诪讬 住讘专转 讗拽诪讬注 拽讗讬 讗住谞讚诇 拽讗讬

The Gemara poses a question: If so, that the baraita is referring to an amulet that did not prove effective for an animal, but if the amulet proved effective, the animal may indeed go out into the public domain with it; what is the meaning of the phrase in the Tosefta: And this is a stricture that applies to animals beyond the strictures that apply to people? The halakha is the same with regard to both people and animals. If the amulet has proven effective, even an animal may go out with it on Shabbat. If it has not proven effective, even a person may not go out with it. The Gemara responds: Do you hold that this statement is referring to an amulet? It is referring to a shoe; an animal may not go out with a shoe on Shabbat, but a person may.

转讗 砖诪注 住讻讬谉 讜诪驻专讻住讬谉 诇讗讚诐 讜讗讬谉 住讻讬谉 讜诪驻专讻住讬谉 诇讘讛诪讛 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讚讗讬讻讗 诪讻讛 讜诪砖讜诐 爪注专 诇讗 讚讙诪专 诪讻讛 讜诪砖讜诐 转注谞讜讙

With regard to whether and to what extent the discomfort of animals is a factor taken into consideration on Shabbat, the Gemara says: Come and hear that which was taught in a baraita: One may smear on oil and scrape off a scab on Shabbat for a person, and one may not smear on oil and scrape off a scab for an animal. Is it not referring here to a case where there is a wound, and he smears on oil and scrapes the scab due to the discomfort caused by the wound, and nevertheless it was permitted exclusively for a person and not for an animal? The Gemara rejects this argument: No, it is referring to a case where the wound has already ceased and healed, and he smears oil and scrapes due to the pleasure caused by the treatment.

转讗 砖诪注 讘讛诪讛 砖讗讞讝讛 讚诐 讗讬谉 诪注诪讬讚讬谉 讗讜转讛 讘诪讬诐 讘砖讘讬诇 砖转爪讟谞谉 讗讚诐 砖讗讞讝讜 讚诐 诪注诪讬讚讬谉 讗讜转讜 讘诪讬诐 讘砖讘讬诇 砖讬爪讟谞谉 讗诪专 注讜诇讗 讙讝讬专讛 诪砖讜诐 砖讞讬拽转 住诪诪谞讬谉

The Gemara cites an additional proof: Come and hear that which was taught in the following baraita: With regard to an animal suffering from heart congestion that restricts its blood supply and whose temperature has risen, one may not stand it in water so that it will cool off. However, with regard to a person suffering from heart congestion that restricts his blood supply, one may stand him in water so that he will cool off. Apparently, the suffering of an animal is of no concern. Ulla said: Here, the Sages issued a decree prohibiting all healing on Shabbat due to the crushing of herbs for medicinal purposes, which is prohibited by Torah law. The Sages prohibited cooling the animal in water lest one come to grind the ingredients used in the preparation of medicine.

讗讬 讛讻讬 讗讚诐 谞诪讬 讗讚诐 谞专讗讛 讻诪讬拽专

If so, the same decree should also apply in the case of a person. It should be prohibited to stand a sick person in water to cool him off due to the rabbinic prohibition against engaging in healing on Shabbat. The Gemara answers: In the case of a person, it appears as if he entered the water merely to cool off, not necessarily to cure an illness.

讗讬 讛讻讬 讘讛诪讛 谞诪讬 谞专讗讛 讻诪讬拽专 讗讬谉 诪讬拽专 诇讘讛诪讛

The Gemara asks: If so, say in the case of an animal as well that it appears as if it entered the water merely to cool off, not necessarily to cure an illness. The Gemara answers: An animal does not typically enter the water on its own to cool off. Neither does one typically stand an animal in water to cool it off unless it serves some healing purpose. Apparently, due to a decree, the Sages were stringent and prohibited standing the animal in water even if it will die as a result.

讜诇讘讛诪讛 诪讬 讙讝专讬谞谉 讜讛转谞讬讗 讛讬转讛 注讜诪讚转 讞讜抓 诇转讞讜诐 拽讜专讗 诇讛 讜讛讬讗 讘讗讛 讜诇讗 讙讝专讬谞谉 讚讬诇诪讗 讗转讬 诇讗转讜讬讬

The Gemara now asks: Do we really issue a decree for an animal? Wasn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: If an animal were standing beyond the Shabbat limit, a situation in which it is prohibited to go fetch it, he may call the animal and it will come to him on its own? And we do not issue a decree to prohibit calling the animal, lest he come to bring it himself. Apparently, the Sages did not issue a decree in a case where one could incur a loss and there is no actual transgression committed. Here too, it should not be prohibited to stand his animal in water due to a decree lest he come to grind herbs and thereby violate a Torah prohibition.

讜讗诪专 专讘讬谞讗 讻讙讜谉 砖讛讬讛 转讞讜诐 砖诇讛 诪讜讘诇注 讘转讜讱 转讞讜诐 砖诇讜

And Ravina said: No proof can be cited from this case, as here it is a situation where the animal鈥檚 Shabbat limit was subsumed within the limit of its owner. The animal strayed beyond its own Shabbat limit, which is determined by the Shabbat limit of the shepherd entrusted with its herding. However, the animal remained within the Shabbat limit of its owner, which extended beyond that of the shepherd. Consequently, the owner is permitted to call the animal so that it will return on its own. Even if he forgets and goes out to fetch the animal, he will not have gone beyond his Shabbat limit. The fact that the animal itself went beyond its Shabbat limit is of no concern.

专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 讗诪专 砖讞讬拽转 住诪诪谞讬谉 讙讜驻讛 转谞讗讬 讛讬讗 讚转谞讬讗 讘讛诪讛 砖讗讻诇讛 讻专砖讬谞讬谉 诇讗 讬专讬爪谞讛 讘讞爪专 讘砖讘讬诇 砖转转专驻讛 讜专讘讬 讗讜砖注讬讗 诪转讬专 讚专砖 专讘讗 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 讗讜砖注讬讗:

Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k said: The matter of the decree due to crushing herbs is itself subject to a dispute between the tanna鈥檌m. As it was taught in a baraita: In the case of an animal that ate vetch, which caused a life-threatening case of constipation, one may not run it around in the courtyard to loosen its bowels due to the decree prohibiting healing. Rabbi Oshaya deems it permitted. Apparently, the tanna鈥檌m disagree whether or not healing is prohibited with regard to animals. The Gemara adds that Rava taught: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Oshaya.

讗诪专 诪专 诇讗 讬爪讗 讛讝讘 讘讻讬住 砖诇讜 讜诇讗 注讝讬诐 讘讻讬住 砖讘讚讚讬讛谉 讜讛转谞讬讗 讬讜爪讗讜转 注讝讬诐 讘讻讬住 砖讘讚讚讬讛谉

The Master said: Neither may a zav go out with his pouch, which prevents his clothes from becoming sullied by his emissions, nor goats with the pouch that is on their udders. The Gemara asks: Wasn鈥檛 it taught in a different baraita: Goats may go out with the pouch that is on their udders?

讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 讚诪讬讛讚拽 讛讗 讚诇讗 诪讬讛讚拽

Rav Yehuda said: This is not difficult. This baraita is referring to a pouch that is tied tightly to the udder. It is permitted because there is no concern that the pouch will fall. That baraita is referring to a pouch that is not tightly tied. It is prohibited because of the concern that the pouch will fall and a person will come to retrieve it.

专讘 讬讜住祝 讗诪专 转谞讗讬 砖拽诇转 诪注诇诪讗 转谞讗讬 讛讬讗 讚转谞谉 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 讘讻诇谉 讞讜抓 诪谉 讛专讞讬诇讜转 讛讻讘讜谞讜转 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 诇讬讞诇讘

Rav Yosef said: Have you removed the tanna鈥檌m from the world? This is subject to a disagreement between the tanna鈥檌m, as we learned in our mishna: She-goats may go out with their udders bound. Rabbi Yosei 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. 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, as in that case, they are tied with a tight, permanent knot. However, they may not go out with their udders bound to conserve the milk, as in that case they are bound loosely. Apparently, there are tanna鈥檌m who rule leniently with regard to attaching pouches to the udders of goats and permit the practice, and others prohibit doing so.

讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讛讗 讜讛讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讻讗谉 诇讬讘砖 讻讗谉 诇讬讞诇讘

And if you wish, say instead: Both this baraita and that baraita were taught in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, and nevertheless it is not difficult. Here, where the goats are permitted to go out with a pouch on their udders, the baraita is referring to a case where it was done to dry their milk supply. There, where goats are prohibited to do so, the baraita is referring to a case where it was done to conserve the milk.

转谞讬讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诪注砖讛 讘注讝讬诐 讘讬转 讗谞讟讜讻讬讗 砖讛讬讜 讚讚讬讛谉 讙住讬谉 讜注砖讜 诇讛谉 讻讬住讬谉 讻讚讬 砖诇讗 讬住专讟讜 讚讚讬讛谉:

The Gemara adds: It was taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda said: There was an incident involving the goats belonging to the residents of a house in Antioch whose udders were especially large and they would drag along the ground. And they made pouches for them so that their udders would not get scratched.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 诪注砖讛 讘讗讞讚 砖诪转讛 讗砖转讜 讜讛谞讬讞讛 讘谉 诇讬谞拽 讜诇讗 讛讬讛 诇讜 砖讻专 诪谞讬拽讛 诇讬转谉 讜谞注砖讛 诇讜 谞住 讜谞驻转讞讜 诇讜 讚讚讬谉 讻砖谞讬 讚讚讬 讗砖讛 讜讛谞讬拽 讗转 讘谞讜

The Gemara cites a related baraita in which the Sages taught: There was an incident where one man鈥檚 wife died, and she left him a son to nurse, and he did not have money to pay the wages of a wet-nurse. And a miracle was performed on his behalf, and he developed breasts like the two breasts of a woman, and he nursed his son.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 讘讗 讜专讗讛 讻诪讛 讙讚讜诇 讗讚诐 讝讛 砖谞注砖讛 诇讜 谞住 讻讝讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讗讚专讘讛 讻诪讛 讙专讜注 讗讚诐 讝讛 砖谞砖转谞讜 诇讜 住讚专讬 讘专讗砖讬转

Rav Yosef said: Come and see how great this person is that a miracle of that magnitude was performed on his behalf. Abaye said to him: On the contrary, how dishonorable is this person that the order of creation was altered on his behalf. A miracle was indeed performed on his behalf; however, it was performed in a demeaning and unpleasant manner.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讘讗 讜专讗讛 讻诪讛 拽砖讬诐 诪讝讜谞讜转讬讜 砖诇 讗讚诐 砖谞砖转谞讜 注诇讬讜 住讚专讬 讘专讗砖讬转 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 转讚注 讚诪转专讞讬砖 谞讬住讗 讜诇讗 讗讘专讜 诪讝讜谞讬:

Rav Yehuda added and said: Come and see how difficult it is to provide for a person鈥檚 sustenance. It is so difficult that the order of creation had to be altered on his behalf, which was apparently easier than providing him a source of financial support. Rav Na岣an said: Know that it is so, as miracles are often performed on a person鈥檚 behalf; however, it has not yet happened that food was miraculously created in a person鈥檚 home.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 诪注砖讛 讘讗讚诐 讗讞讚 砖谞砖讗 讗砖讛 讙讬讚诪转 讜诇讗 讛讻讬专 讘讛 注讚 讬讜诐 诪讜转讛 讗诪专 专讘 讘讗 讜专讗讛 讻诪讛 爪谞讜注讛 讗砖讛 讝讜 砖诇讗 讛讻讬专 讘讛 讘注诇讛 讗诪专 诇讜 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讝讜 讚专讻讛 讘讻讱 讗诇讗 讻诪讛 爪谞讜注 讗讚诐 讝讛 砖诇讗 讛讻讬专 讘讗砖转讜:

The Gemara relates another unusual story. The Sages taught: There was an incident involving one man who married a one-armed woman, and he did not realize that she was one-armed until the day that she died. Rav said: Come and see how modest this woman was that her husband did not realize this about her. Rabbi 岣yya said to him: That is typical conduct for her, as a woman typically covers herself. All the more so a one-armed woman makes sure to cover her defect. Rather, say: How modest was this man that he did not recognize this in his wife.

讝讻专讬诐 讬讜爪讗讬谉 诇讘讜讘讬谉: 诪讗讬 诇讘讜讘讬谉 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 转讜转专讬 诪讗讬 诪砖诪注 讚讛讗讬 诇讘讜讘讬谉 诇讬砖谞讗 讚拽专讜讘讬 讛讜讗 讚讻转讬讘 诇讘讘转谞讬 讗讞讜转讬 讻诇讛

We learned in our mishna: Rams may go out levuvin. The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of levuvin? Rav Huna said: Tied [tutri] in pairs. The Gemara explains: From where may it be inferred that this word levuvin is a term of closeness? As it is written: 鈥淵ou have drawn me near [libavtini], my sister my bride鈥 (Song of Songs 4:9).

注讜诇讗 讗诪专 注讜专 砖拽讜砖专讬谉 诇讛诐 讻谞讙讚 诇讘诐 讻讚讬 砖诇讗 讬驻诇讜 注诇讬讛谉 讝讗讘讬诐 讝讗讘讬诐 讗讝讻专讬诐 谞驻诇讬 讗谞拽讬讘讜转 诇讗 谞驻诇讬 诪砖讜诐 讚诪住讙讜 讘专讬砖 注讚专讗 讜讝讗讘讬谉 讘专讬砖 注讚专讗 谞驻诇讬 讘住讜祝 注讚专讗 诇讗 谞驻诇讬 讗诇讗 诪砖讜诐 讚砖诪谞讬 讜讘谞拽讘讜转 诇讬讻讗 砖诪谞讬 讜转讜 诪讬 讬讚注讬 讘讬谉 讛谞讬 诇讛谞讬 讗诇讗 诪砖讜诐 讚讝拽驻讬 讞讜讟诪讬讬讛讜 讜诪住讙讜 讻讬 讚讜讜

Ulla said: Levuvin refers to animal hide that one ties over the hearts [lev] of rams so that wolves will not attack them. The Gemara asks: Do wolves attack rams but do not attack ewes? Why is this protection provided only to males? The Gemara answers: Because the males walk at the head of the flock. The Gemara asks: Do wolves attack the head of the flock but not the rear of the flock? Rather, the wolves prey specifically on the rams because they are plump. The Gemara asks: Are there no plump ones among the ewes? And furthermore, do the wolves know how to distinguish between these, the plump ones, and those, the thin ones? Rather, the wolves prey specifically on the rams because they raise their noses and walk while looking to both sides. The wolves think that they are preparing to attack them.

专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 讗诪专 注讜专 砖拽讜砖专讬谉 诇讛谉 转讞转 讝讻专讜转谉 讻讚讬 砖诇讗 讬注诇讜 注诇 讛谞拽讘讜转 诪诪讗讬 诪讚拽转谞讬 住讬驻讗 讜讛专讞诇讬诐 讬讜爪讗讜转 砖讞讜讝讜转 诪讗讬 砖讞讜讝讜转 砖讗讜讞讝讬谉 讛讗诇讬讛 砖诇讛谉 诇诪注诇讛 讻讚讬 砖讬注诇讜 注诇讬讛谉 讝讻专讬诐 专讬砖讗 讻讚讬 砖诇讗 讬注诇讜 注诇 讛谞拽讘讜转 讜住讬驻讗 讻讚讬 砖讬注诇讜 注诇讬讛谉 讝讻专讬诐

Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k said: Levuvin refers to animal hide that one ties under their male organ so that they will not mount the females. And from where do we derive that meaning? Because the latter clause states: Ewes may go out she岣zot. What is the meaning of she岣zot? It means that they fasten [she鈥檕岣zin] their tails with animal hide so that the males may mount them more easily. It is reasonable to explain that the first clause refers to an action undertaken so that the males will not mount the females, and the latter clause to an action undertaken so that the males will mount them.

诪讗讬 诪砖诪注 讚讛讗讬 砖讞讜讝讜转 诇讬砖谞讗 讚讙诇讜讬讬 讛讜讗 讚讻转讬讘 讜讛谞讛 讗砖讛 诇拽专讗转讜

The Gemara asks: From where may it be inferred that this word she岣zot is a term of exposure? The Gemara answers: As it is written in the description of a wicked woman: 鈥淎nd behold there met him a woman

Scroll To Top