Shabbat 54

שית זונה ונצורת לב:

with the attire of a harlot [shit zona] and wily of heart” (Proverbs 7:10). Sheḥuzot can be interpreted as an acronym of the words shit zona, attire of a harlot, with the letters tav and ḥet, which are similar in form, interchanged.

הרחלים יוצאות כבולות: מאי כבולות שמכבלין אליה שלהן למטה כדי שלא יעלו עליהן הזכרים מאי משמע דהאי כבול לישנא דלא עביד פירי הוא דכתיב מה הערים [האלה] אשר נתת לי אחי ויקרא (להן) ארץ כבול עד היום הזה

We learned in the mishna: Ewes may go out kevulot. The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of kevulot? It means that they bind their tails down with animal hide so that the males will not mount them. The Gemara explains: From where may it be inferred that this word kavul is a term meaning does not produce fruit? As it is written, when Solomon gave a portion of land to Hiram, he complained: “What cities are these which you have given me, my brother? And he called them the land of Kavul to this day” (I Kings 9:13).

מאי ארץ כבול אמר רב הונא שהיו בה בני אדם שמכובלין בכסף ובזהב אמר ליה רבא אי הכי היינו דכתיב (כי לא) ישרו בעיניו מפני שמכובלין בכסף ובזהב לא ישרו בעיניו אמר ליה אין כיון דעתירי ומפנקי לא עבדי עבידתא

What is the meaning of the land of Kavul? Rav Huna said: That the people living there were bound [mekhubalin] and surrounded by silver and gold. Rava said to him: If so, is that what is written: “And Hiram came out of Tyre to see the cities which Solomon had given him, and they pleased him not” (I Kings 9:12)? Because the people there were bound in silver and gold, the cities were not pleasing in his eyes? Rav Huna said to him: Yes, indeed, it was precisely the abundant wealth that displeased Hiram. Since the people were wealthy and delicate, they did not perform labor. Hiram was seeking people whom he could enlist in the service of the king.

רב נחמן בר יצחק אמר ארץ חומטון היתה ואמאי קרי לה כבול דמשתרגא בה כרעא עד כבלא ואמרי אינשי ארעא מכבלא דלא עבד פירי:

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: It was a sandy [ḥomton] expanse of land. And why was it called Kavul? It is because the leg sinks into it up to the ankle [kavla]. And people say in describing poor quality land: Land that is bound [mekhabela] shut, i.e., that does not produce fruit.

כבונות: מאי כבונות שמכבנין אותו למילת כדתנן שאת כצמר לבן מאי צמר לבן אמר רב ביבי בר אביי כצמר נקי בן יומו שמכבנין אותו למילת:

We learned in the mishna: Ewes may go out kevunot. The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of kevunot? It is that they covered [mekhabnin] the animal to produce fine wool. Sheep were wrapped in cloth from the day they were born so that their wool would remain perfectly clean and it could be used in fashioning especially fine wool garments. As we learned in a mishna: The color of a leprous sore [se’et] is like that of white wool. The Gemara asked: What is white wool? Rav Beivai bar Abaye said: Like the clean wool of a newborn lamb, which they cover from birth to produce fine wool.

והעזים יוצאות צרורות: איתמר רב אמר הלכה כרבי יהודה ושמואל אמר הלכה כרבי יוסי

Our mishna continues: And the she-goats may go out with their udders bound. Rabbi Yosei prohibits doing so. Rabbi Yehuda distinguishes between a case where the udders were bound to dry the milk supply and a case where they were bound to conserve the milk. It was stated that the amora’im disagreed with regard to the ruling in this dispute: Rav said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, and Shmuel said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei.

ואיכא דמתני להא שמעתא באפי נפשיה רב אמר ליבש מותר ולא לחלב ושמואל אמר אחד זה ואחד זה אסור

And there are those who teach this halakha independent of the mishna. Rav said: If the udders were bound to dry the milk supply it is permitted, and not if they were bound to conserve the milk. And Shmuel said: Both this and that are prohibited.

ואיכא דמתני לה אהא עזים יוצאות צרורות ליבש אבל לא לחלב משום רבי יהודה בן בתירא אמרו כך הלכה אבל מי מפיס איזו ליבש ואיזו לחלב ומתוך שאין מכירים אחד זה ואחד זה אסור אמר שמואל ואמרי לה אמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל הלכה כרבי יהודה בן בתירא כי אתא רבין אמר רבי יוחנן הלכה כתנא קמא:

And there are those who taught this dispute with regard to this baraita: Goats may go out with their udders bound to dry the milk supply but not to conserve the milk. In the name of Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira they said: That is the halakha, based on the letter of the law, but who can cast lots to determine by sight alone which udder is bound to dry the milk supply and which was bound to conserve the milk? And since one cannot distinguish between them, the Sages said: Both this and that are prohibited. Shmuel said, and some say Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira. In terms of practical halakha, according to all versions of the disagreement, Shmuel holds that it is prohibited in both cases. When Ravin came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of the anonymous first tanna of the mishna. He permits goats to go out with their udders bound in all cases.

מתני׳ ובמה אינה יוצאה לא יצא גמל במטולטלת לא עקוד ולא רגול וכן שאר כל הבהמות

MISHNA: And with what may an animal not go out into the public domain on Shabbat? A camel may not go out with a saddlecloth, nor may it go out akud or ragul, which are different ways of tying its legs together, as will be explained in the Gemara. And likewise, tying all other animals in those manners is prohibited.

לא יקשור גמלים זה בזה וימשוך אבל מכניס חבלים לתוך ידו וימשוך ובלבד שלא יכרוך:

And likewise, one may not tie camels one to the other and pull the lead camel, thereby pulling the others after it. However, he may place the ropes tied to each of the camels in his hand and pull them all, provided that he does not intertwine the ropes.

גמ׳ תנא לא יצא הגמל במטולטלת הקשורה לו בזנבו אבל יוצא הוא במטולטלת הקשורה בזנבו ובחוטרתו אמר רבה בר רב הונא יוצא הגמל במטולטלת הקשורה לה בשילייתה:

GEMARA: It was taught in the Tosefta: A camel may not go out with a saddlecloth tied to its tail alone. However, it may go out with a saddlecloth tied to both its tail and its hump, as in that case one can assume that the saddlecloth will not fall off. Rabba bar Rav Huna said: A female camel may go out with a saddlecloth tied to its afterbirth. Because any movement of the saddlecloth will cause pain, the animal will not attempt to detach it. Therefore, there is no room for concern lest it fall.

לא עקוד ולא רגול: אמר רב יהודה עקוד עקידת יד ורגל כיצחק בן אברהם רגול שלא יכוף ידו על גבי זרועו ויקשור

We learned in the mishna: A camel may not go out akud or ragul. Rav Yehuda said: Akud means that the animal’s foreleg and hind leg are bound together, similar to the binding of Isaac, son of Abraham, with regard to whom the term vaya’akod is employed. Ragul means that one may not bend the lower part of the foreleg onto the upper foreleg and tie it. That was done so that the camel would have the use of only three legs and would be unable to run away.

מיתיבי עקוד שתי ידים ושתי רגלים רגול שלא יכוף ידו על גבי זרועו ויקשור הוא דאמר כי האי תנא דתניא עקוד עקידת יד ורגל או שתי ידים ושתי רגלים רגול שלא יכוף ידו על גבי זרועו ויקשור

The Gemara raises an objection from the following baraita: Akud means that the animal’s two forelegs and two hind legs are bound together. Ragul means that one may not bend the lower part of the foreleg onto the upper foreleg and tie it. The Gemara answers: Rav Yehuda holds in accordance with this tanna, as it was taught in a baraita: Akud means that either the animal’s foreleg and hind leg or its two forelegs and two hind legs are bound together. Ragul means that one may not bend the lower part of the foreleg onto the upper foreleg and tie it.

ואכתי לא דמי בשלמא רישא וסיפא ניחא מציעתא קשיא

The Gemara asks: And this baraita and Rav Yehuda’s statement are still not the same. Granted, the first clause, the first case of akud, and the last clause, the case of ragul, work out well. The baraita and the opinion of Rav Yehuda correspond. However, the middle clause is difficult. According to the baraita, when the animal’s two forelegs and two hind legs are bound together, that is also considered akud, contrary to Rav Yehuda’s opinion.

אלא הוא דאמר כי האי תנא עקוד עקידת יד ורגל כיצחק בן אברהם רגול שלא יכוף ידו על גבי זרועו ויקשור:

Rather, Rav Yehuda stated his opinion in accordance with this tanna, who said in a baraita: Akud means that the animal’s foreleg and hind leg are bound together, similar to the binding of Isaac, son of Abraham. Ragul means that one may not bend the lower part of the foreleg onto the upper foreleg and tie it.

ולא יקשור גמלים: מאי טעמא אמר רב אשי משום דמיחזי כמאן דאזיל לחינגא:

We learned in the mishna: And one may not tie camels one to the other and pull the lead camel, thereby pulling the others after it. The Gemara asks: What is the reason for this? Rav Ashi said: Because he appears like one going to the market [ḥinga] to sell merchandise or to deliver a caravan of camels. In deference to Shabbat, one may not create that impression.

אבל מכניס: אמר רב אשי לא שנו אלא לענין כלאים כלאים דמאי אילימא כלאים דאדם והתנן אדם מותר עם כולם לחרוש ולמשוך

The mishna continues: However, he may place the ropes tied to each of the camels in his hand and pull them all, provided that he does not intertwine the ropes. Rav Ashi said: This prohibition was taught not with regard to the halakhot of Shabbat but only with regard to the halakhot of prohibited mixtures of diverse kinds. The Gemara asks: Diverse kinds of what? If you say that it is referring to the prohibited mixture of the diverse kinds of man and animal, i.e., a person may not be tied to an animal, just as plowing with the diverse kinds of an ox and a donkey is prohibited, that is difficult. Didn’t we learn in a mishna: A person is permitted to plow and to pull a wagon together with all animals, as the prohibition is limited to diverse kinds of animals?

אלא כלאים דחבלים והתניא התוכף תכיפה אחת אינה חיבור

Rather, the problem here is one of diverse kinds of ropes. If one rope is made of wool and another of linen, it is prohibited to intertwine them because that would create a forbidden mixture of the diverse kinds of wool and linen. However, this too is difficult, as, wasn’t it taught in a baraita: One who attaches a swatch of wool and a swatch of linen with a single stitch or knot, it is not considered a connection with regard to the prohibition of diverse kinds? All the more so in this case, where the ropes are not tied together at all but are merely intertwined, it should not be considered a connection.

לעולם כלאים דחבלים והכי קאמר ובלבד שלא יכרוך ויקשור

The Gemara answers: Actually, the problem here is one of diverse kinds of ropes, and the mishna is saying as follows: Provided that he does not intertwine the ropes and tie them together. Ropes that are intertwined and tied together constitute a double knot, which is considered a connection with regard to the prohibition of diverse kinds of wool and linen.

אמר שמואל ובלבד שלא יצא [חבל] מתחת ידו טפח והא תנא דבי שמואל טפחיים

Shmuel said that there is another restriction that applies to pulling camels with ropes on Shabbat. It is only permitted provided that a handbreadth of the rope does not hang below his hand to avoid the appearance that he is carrying a rope in his hand on Shabbat. The Gemara raises an objection: Didn’t a Sage of the school of Shmuel teach a baraita: Provided that two handbreadths of the rope do not hang below his hand?

אמר אביי השתא דאמר שמואל טפח ותנא דבי שמואל טפחיים שמואל הלכה למעשה אתא לאשמעינן

Abaye said: Now that Shmuel said one handbreadth, and a Sage of the school of Shmuel taught two handbreadths, it is reasonable to conclude that Shmuel came to teach us the practical halakha. Even though the tanna’im permitted pulling the camel as long as there is less than two handbreadths of rope hanging below his hand, in practice, one should be stringent and not leave even one handbreadth hanging.

והתניא ובלבד שיגביה מן הקרקע טפח כי תניא ההיא בחבלא דביני ביני:

The Gemara raises an objection: Wasn’t it taught in a baraita: This is only permitted provided that he raises the rope one handbreadth from the ground? Apparently, there is no restriction with regard to the length of rope that may hang below the person’s hand. The Gemara answers: When this baraita was taught, it was taught with regard to the length of rope between the camel and the person holding it. That part of the rope may not sag to the ground; rather, it must be raised at least one handbreadth so that it is clear that the rope is attached to the camel.

מתני׳ אין חמור יוצא במרדעת בזמן שאינה קשורה לו ולא בזוג אף על פי שהוא פקוק ולא בסולם שבצוארו ולא ברצועה שברגלו

MISHNA: This mishna lists additional objects with which an animal may not go out into the public domain on Shabbat: A donkey may neither go out with the saddlecloth when it is not tied to its back, nor with a bell even if it is plugged to prevent it from ringing, nor with a ladder that is around its neck, nor with a strap that is around its leg.

ואין התרנגולים יוצאין בחוטין ולא ברצועה שברגליהם ואין הזכרים יוצאין בעגלה שתחת האליה שלהן

And the roosters may not go out with strings and not with a strap on their feet, which are tied there as a sign of ownership. And the rams may not go out with a small wagon under their tails, as it was common practice to put a small wagon under the tails of grown sheep so that the tail would not be injured by dragging on the ground.

ואין הרחלים יוצאות חנונות ואין העגל יוצא בגימון ולא פרה בעור הקופר ולא ברצועה שבין קרניה פרתו של רבי אלעזר בן עזריה היתה יוצאה ברצועה שבין קרניה שלא ברצון חכמים:

And ewes may not go out ḥanunot, nor may a calf go out with a gimon, nor may a cow go out with the skin of a hedgehog [kupar], nor with a strap between its horns. The mishna relates that Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya’s cow would go out on Shabbat with a strap between its horns, contrary to the will of the Sages.

גמ׳ מאי טעמא כדאמרן:

GEMARA: We learned in the mishna that a donkey may not go out on Shabbat with a saddlecloth if it was not tied to its back. The Gemara explains: What is the reason? As we stated above, there is room for concern that when not secured, the saddlecloth is liable to fall off the animal’s back, and its owner may come to retrieve the saddlecloth in the public domain.

ולא בזוג אף על פי שהוא פקוק: משום דמיחזי כמאן דאזיל לחינגא:

We also learned in the mishna: A donkey may not go out with a bell even if it is plugged to prevent it from ringing. The reason is that the animal’s owner appears like one going to the market, who adorns his donkey with bells in honor of market day.

ולא בסולם שבצוארו: אמר רב הונא בי לועא למאי עבדי ליה להיכא דאית ליה מכה דלא הדר חייך ביה:

It was also taught in the mishna: Nor with a ladder that is around its neck. Rav Huna said: This refers to a device tied to the jaw. For what purpose does the owner do so to the animal? For a circumstance in which the animal has a wound, so that it does not chafe it again and exacerbate the wound.

ולא ברצועה שברגלו: דעבדי ליה לגיזרא:

The mishna continues: Nor with a strap that is around its leg. The Gemara explains: What purpose does this strap serve? The owner does so to the animal to protect its strides. If its legs are slightly bent so that they knock against each other when the animal walks, a strap is tied there to prevent injury.

ואין התרנגולין יוצאין בחוטין: דעבדי ליה סימנא כי היכי דלא ליחלפו:

We learned further in the mishna: And the roosters may not go out with strings. For what purpose does the owner place the strings? He does so to the roosters as a sign indicating to whom they belong, so that they will not be confused with other roosters.

ולא ברצועה: דעבדי ליה כי היכי דלא ליתברו מאני: ואין הזכרים יוצאין בעגלה: כי היכי דלא לחמטן אלייתיה:

The mishna continues: Nor with a strap on their feet. The Gemara explains that the owner does so to the roosters so that they will not break vessels. When their legs are tied, they jump around less and cause less damage. The mishna teaches: Rams may not go out with a small wagon under their tails. The Gemara explains that these wagons were placed there in order that their tails will not be injured.

ואין הרחלים יוצאות חנונות: יתיב רב אחא בר עולא קמיה דרב חסדא ויתיב וקאמר משעה שגוזזין אותה טומנין לה עזק בשמן ומניחין לה על פדחתה כדי שלא תצטנן אמר ליה רב חסדא אם כן עשיתה מר עוקבא

The mishna teaches: And ewes may not go out ḥanunot. The Gemara relates that Rav Aḥa bar Ulla sat before Rav Ḥisda and he sat and he said: From when they shear the wool off the animal, they soak a soft swatch of wool or some other material in oil and place it on the animal’s forehead so that it will not catch cold until its wool grows back. Ḥanunot refers to animals with those swatches. Rav Ḥisda said to him: If so, you turned the animal into the Exilarch, Mar Ukva. That is treatment fit for him, not for a shorn sheep.

אלא יתיב רב פפא בר שמואל קמיה דרב חסדא ויתיב וקאמר בשעה שכורעת לילד טומנין לה שני עזקין של שמן ומניחין לה אחד על פדחתה ואחד על הרחם כדי שתתחמם אמר ליה רב נחמן אם כן עשיתה ילתא

Rather, Rav Pappa bar Shmuel sat before Rav Ḥisda, and he sat and he said: At the time that the animal crouches to give birth, those tending to the animal soak two swatches of wool in oil, and place one on the animal’s forehead and the other on its womb so that it will be warmed. Ḥanunot refers to animals with those swatches. Rav Naḥman said to him: If so, you turned the animal into Yalta, my wife, who descended from the house of the Exilarch. That is treatment fit for her, not for an animal.

אלא אמר רב הונא עץ אחד יש בכרכי הים וחנון שמו ומביאין קיסם ומניחין לה בחוטמה כדי שתתעטש ויפלו דרני ראשה אי הכי זכרים נמי כיון דמנגחי זכרים בהדדי ממילא נפלן שמעון נזירא אמר קיסמא דריתמא

Rather, Rav Huna said: There is a certain tree in the cities on the sea shore, and ḥanun is its name. Those tending to the animal bring a wood chip from the tree and place it in the animal’s nose so that it will sneeze and the worms on its head will fall. The Gemara asks: If so, not only ewes but also rams should be given this treatment. The Gemara answers: Since the rams butt heads with each other, the worms fall in any event. Shimon the Nazirite said: Ḥanunot is referring to animals into whose nose the chip of a broom tree would be placed.

בשלמא דרב הונא היינו דקתני חנונות אלא לרבנן מאי חנונות דעבדינן להו מילתא דמרחמינן עלייהו:

The Gemara asks: Granted, according to the explanation of Rav Huna that it is the chip taken from the ḥanun tree, that is why the mishna teaches the halakha employing the term ḥanunot. However, according to the explanations proposed by the other Sages, what is the reason that the mishna employed the term ḥanunot? The Gemara explains: Because we do something to the animals that indicates that we have mercy on them; hanunot in the sense of merciful.

ואין העגל יוצא בגימון: מאי עגל בגימון אמר רב הונא בר נירא אמר רבי אלעזר מאי משמע דהאי גימון לישנא דמיכף דכתיב הלכוף כאגמון ראשו:

We learned in the mishna: And a calf may not go out on Shabbat with a gimon. The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of: A calf with a gimon? Rav Huna said: A small yoke is placed on the calf in order to train it from an early age to bear a yoke. Rabbi Elazar said: From where is it inferred that this term gimon is a term of bending? As it is written: “Is it to bow down his head like a bulrush [agmon]” (Isaiah 58:5). There is an etymological similarity between the words gimon and agmon.

ולא פרה בעור הקופר: דעבדי לה כי היכי דלא למציוה יאלי:

The mishna continues: And a cow may not go out on Shabbat with the skin of a hedgehog placed over its udder. The Gemara explains that the owner does this to the cow so that creeping animals will not suckle from it.

ולא ברצועה שבין קרניה: אי לרב (דאמר) בין לנוי בין לשמר אסור אי לשמואל (דאמר) לנוי אסור לשמר מותר:

It was also taught in the mishna: And not with a strap that is between its horns. The Gemara notes: If this is explained according to the opinion of Rav, whether the strap was intended as an ornament or whether it was intended to secure the animal, it is prohibited for the cow to go out into the public domain with it. If this is explained according to the opinion of Shmuel, if the strap was intended as an ornament, it is prohibited; if it was intended to secure the animal, it is permitted.

פרתו של רבי אלעזר בן עזריה: וחדא פרה הויא ליה והא אמר רב ואמרי לה אמר רב יהודה אמר רב תריסר אלפי עגלי הוה מעשר רבי אלעזר בן עזריה מעדריה כל שתא ושתא

The mishna relates that the cow of Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya would go out on Shabbat with a strap between its horns, contrary to the will of the Sages. The Gemara asks: Did Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya have only one cow? Didn’t Rav say, and some say that Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya would tithe from his herds 12,000 calves each and every year? There were 120, 000 calves born in his herds annually. There is no way, then, to speak of the cow of Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya.

תנא לא שלו היתה אלא של שכינתו היתה ומתוך שלא מיחה בה נקראת על שמו

The Gemara answers: It was taught in the Tosefta: The cow was not his; rather, it was his neighbor’s. And because he did not protest her conduct and tell her that doing so is prohibited the cow was called by his name to his discredit, as if it were his.

רב ורבי חנינא ורבי יוחנן ורב חביבא מתנו בכוליה דסדר מועד כל כי האי זוגא חלופי רבי יוחנן ומעייל רבי יונתן כל מי שאפשר למחות לאנשי ביתו ולא מיחה נתפס על אנשי ביתו באנשי עירו נתפס על אנשי עירו בכל העולם כולו נתפס על כל העולם כולו

It was related that Rav, and Rabbi Ḥanina, and Rabbi Yoḥanan, and Rav Ḥaviva taught the statement cited below. The Gemara comments: Throughout the order of Moed, wherever this pair of Sages is mentioned, exchange Rabbi Yoḥanan and insert Rabbi Yonatan in his place. In any event, they said: Anyone who had the capability to effectively protest the sinful conduct of the members of his household and did not protest, he himself is apprehended for the sins of the members of his household and punished. If he is in a position to protest the sinful conduct of the people of his town, and he fails to do so, he is apprehended for the sins of the people of his town. If he is in a position to protest the sinful conduct of the whole world, and he fails to do so, he is apprehended for the sins of the whole world.

אמר רב פפא והני דבי ריש גלותא נתפסו על כולי עלמא כי הא דאמר רבי חנינא מאי דכתיב ה׳ במשפט יבא עם זקני עמו ושריו אם שרים חטאו

Rav Pappa said: And the members of the household of the Exilarch were apprehended and punished for the sins of the whole world. Because their authority extends across the entire Jewish world, it is in their hands to ensure that nobody commit a transgression. As indicated by that which Rabbi Ḥanina said: What is the meaning of that which is written: “The Lord will enter into judgment with the Elders of His people and its princes, saying: It is you who have eaten up the vineyard; the robbery of the poor is in your houses” (Isaiah 3:14)? The question arises: If the princes sinned by committing robbery,