שבת נח

שבת נח

אֵין בָּהּ מִשּׁוּם עַטְרוֹת כַּלּוֹת.

the rabbinic decree prohibiting adorning brides with bridal crowns to commemorate the destruction of the Temple does not apply to an istema.

וּשְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר: כַּבְלָא דְעַבְדָּא תְּנַן. וּמִי אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל הָכִי? וְהָאָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: יוֹצֵא הָעֶבֶד בְּחוֹתָם שֶׁבְּצַוָּארוֹ, אֲבָל לֹא בְּחוֹתָם שֶׁבִּכְסוּתוֹ!

Earlier, the Gemara cited Rabbi Abbahu’s opinion that the kavul mentioned in the mishna, which one may not wear into the public domain on Shabbat, is a woolen cap. And Shmuel said: It is the seal of a slave that we learned about in the mishna. The Gemara asks: And did Shmuel actually say this? Didn’t Shmuel say: A slave may go out on Shabbat with a seal that is around his neck but not with a seal that is on his clothes? Apparently, Shmuel holds that one may go out into the public domain with a slave’s seal. How, then, could he say that kavul in the mishna, with which one may not go out into the public domain, is referring to the seal of a slave?

לָא קַשְׁיָא: הָא דַּעֲבַד לֵיהּ רַבֵּיהּ, הָא דַּעֲבַד אִיהוּ לְנַפְשֵׁיהּ.

The Gemara answers: This is not difficult. This, where Shmuel said that one may go out with a slave’s seal on Shabbat, is referring to a case where his master made it for him. The slave will not remove it because he fears his master. Therefore, there is no concern lest he carry it. However, that, where the mishna said that it is prohibited to go out with a kavul, which according to Shmuel is the seal of a slave, is referring to a case where he made it for himself to indicate to all who his master is so that he may enjoy his master’s protection. In that case, since it is dependent solely upon his discretion, there is concern lest he remove the seal and carry it. Therefore, the Sages prohibited going out with it into the public domain.

בְּמַאי אוֹקִימְתָּא לְהָא דִּשְׁמוּאֵל — דַּעֲבַד לֵיהּ רַבֵּיהּ? בְּחוֹתָם שֶׁבִּכְסוּתוֹ אַמַּאי לָא!

The Gemara asks: In what case did you establish this statement of Shmuel? It is in the case of a seal that his master made for him. If so, why may he not go out with a seal on his clothes? There too, since his master made it for him he will not remove it.

דִּילְמָא מִיפְּסַק, וּמִירְתַת וּמְיקַפֵּל לֵיהּ וּמַחֵית לֵיהּ אַכַּתְפֵּיהּ. כִּדְרַב יִצְחָק בַּר יוֹסֵף, דְּאָמַר רַב יִצְחָק בַּר יוֹסֵף אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: הַיּוֹצֵא בְּטַלִּית מְקֻפֶּלֶת וּמוּנַּחַת לוֹ עַל כְּתֵפָיו בְּשַׁבָּת — חַיָּיב חַטָּאת.

The Gemara answers: There the concern is that perhaps the seal will be severed, and the slave will fear his master and fold his cloak and place it on his shoulders so that his master will not see that he has no seal on his clothing. That concern is in accordance with the opinion of Rav Yitzḥak bar Yosef; as Rav Yitzḥak bar Yosef said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: One who goes out into the public domain with a cloak folded and resting on his shoulders on Shabbat is liable to bring a sin-offering. That is not the manner in which one wears a garment; it is the manner in which one carries a burden.

וְכִי הָא דַּאֲמַר לֵיהּ שְׁמוּאֵל לְרַב חִינָּנָא בַּר שֵׁילָא: כּוּלְּהוּ רַבָּנַן דְּבֵי רֵישׁ גָּלוּתָא לָא לִיפְּקוּ בְּסַרְבָּלֵי חֲתִימֵי, לְבַר מִינָּךְ — דְּלָא קָפְדִי עֲלָיךְ דְּבֵי רֵישׁ גָּלוּתָא.

And this is like that which Shmuel said to Rav Ḥinnana bar Sheila: All of the Sages affiliated with the house of the Exilarch may not go out on Shabbat with sealed cloaks [sarbal], i.e., garments with seals on them, except for you, since the people of the Exilarch’s house are not particular with regard to you. The Sages affiliated with the Exilarch were officially considered servants of the house and would wear the seal of the house of the Exilarch. Therefore, it was prohibited for them to go out into the public domain on Shabbat with a cloak bearing the Exilarch’s seal, lest the seal break and, in fear of the Exilarch, they remove the cloak, fold it, place it on their shoulders, and carry it on Shabbat. Only Rav Ḥinnana bar Sheila was permitted to go out with this seal on Shabbat since the people of the Exilarch’s house were not exacting with him. Even if he wore clothing with no seal, they would not consider it an act of insubordination against the Exilarch.

גּוּפָא, אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: יוֹצֵא הָעֶבֶד בְּחוֹתָם שֶׁבְּצַוָּארוֹ אֲבָל לֹא בְּחוֹתָם שֶׁבִּכְסוּתוֹ. תַּנְיָא נָמֵי הָכִי: יוֹצֵא הָעֶבֶד בְּחוֹתָם שֶׁבְּצַוָּארוֹ אֲבָל לֹא בְּחוֹתָם שֶׁבִּכְסוּתוֹ.

The Gemara discusses the matter itself: Shmuel said that a slave may go out with a seal that is around his neck but not with a seal that is on his clothes. That opinion was also taught in a baraita: A slave may go out with a seal that is around his neck but not with a seal that is on his clothes.

וּרְמִינְהוּ: לֹא יֵצֵא הָעֶבֶד בְּחוֹתָם שֶׁבְּצַוָּארוֹ וְלֹא בְּחוֹתָם שֶׁבִּכְסוּתוֹ, זֶה וָזֶה אֵין מְקַבְּלִין טוּמְאָה. וְלֹא בְּזוֹג שֶׁבְּצַוָּארוֹ, אֲבָל יוֹצֵא הוּא בְּזוֹג שֶׁבִּכְסוּתוֹ, זֶה וָזֶה מְקַבְּלִין טוּמְאָה.

The Gemara raises a contradiction from another baraita: The slave may neither go out with a seal that is around his neck nor with a seal that is on his clothes on Shabbat, and both this and that cannot become ritually impure. And he may not go out with a bell that is hung around his neck; however, he may go out with a bell that is on his clothes, and both this and that can become ritually impure.

וְלֹא תֵּצֵא בְּהֵמָה לֹא בְּחוֹתָם שֶׁבְּצַוָּארָהּ, וְלֹא בְּחוֹתָם שֶׁבִּכְסוּתָהּ, וְלֹא בְּזוֹג שֶׁבִּכְסוּתָהּ, וְלֹא בְּזוֹג שֶׁבְּצַוָּארָהּ, זֶה וָזֶה אֵין מְקַבְּלִין טוּמְאָה!

And an animal may neither go out with a seal that is around its neck, nor with a seal that is on its clothes, nor with a bell that is on its clothes, nor with a bell that is around its neck since with regard to an animal these are considered burdens not ornaments. Both this, the seal, and that, the bell, cannot become ritually impure because animal ornaments and utensils do not fall into the category of objects that can become ritually impure. Apparently, it is even prohibited for a slave to go out with a seal around his neck, contrary to Shmuel’s opinion.

לֵימָא, הָא דַּעֲבַד לֵיהּ רַבֵּיהּ, הָא דַּעֲבַד אִיהוּ לְנַפְשֵׁיהּ.

The Gemara answers: Say that this baraita, which permits going out, is referring to a case where his master made him the seal. Since he fears removing it, there is no concern that he will come to carry it. That baraita, which prohibits going out, is referring to a case where he made it for himself and there is concern lest he come to remove it and carry it.

לָא, אִידִי וְאִידִי דַּעֲבַד לֵיהּ רַבֵּיהּ — וְכָאן בְּשֶׁל מַתֶּכֶת, וְכָאן בְּשֶׁל טִיט, וְכִדְרַב נַחְמָן אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר אֲבוּהּ: דָּבָר הַמַּקְפִּיד עָלָיו רַבּוֹ — אֵין יוֹצְאִין בּוֹ. דָּבָר שֶׁאֵין מַקְפִּיד עָלָיו — יוֹצְאִין בּוֹ.

The Gemara rejects this resolution: No, both this and that are referring to a case where his master made it for him. The difference can be explained differently. And here, where it was prohibited, it is referring to a seal of metal, and here, where it was permitted, it is a seal of clay. And as Rav Naḥman said that Rabba bar Avuh said: With an object about which his master is particular, one may not go out on Shabbat, lest it become detached from the garment, and fear of his master lead the slave to carry it in his hand. With an object about which his master is not particular, one may go out with it.

הָכִי נָמֵי מִסְתַּבְּרָא, מִדְּקָתָנֵי: זֶה וָזֶה אֵין מְקַבְּלִין טוּמְאָה. אִי אָמְרַתְּ בִּשְׁלָמָא שֶׁל מַתֶּכֶת — הָנֵי הוּא דְּלָא מְקַבְּלִי טוּמְאָה, הָא כֵּלִים דִּידְהוּ מְקַבְּלִי טוּמְאָה.

The Gemara adds: So too, it is reasonable to understand the baraita from the fact that it teaches there: This seal and that seal cannot become ritually impure. Granted, if you say it is referring to a metal seal, it is possible to understand the novel aspect of the baraita as follows: These are the objects that cannot become ritually impure; however, their vessels made of the same material can become ritually impure.

אֶלָּא אִי אָמְרַתְּ בְּשֶׁל טִיט תְּנַן, הָנֵי הוּא דְּלָא מְקַבְּלִי טוּמְאָה, הָא כֵּלִים דִּידְהוּ מְקַבְּלִי טוּמְאָה?!

However, if you say that we learned with regard to seals of clay, can it be similarly inferred that these seals are the objects that cannot become ritually impure; however, their vessels made of the same material can become ritually impure?

וְהָא תַּנְיָא: כְּלֵי אֲבָנִים כְּלֵי גְלָלִים וּכְלֵי אֲדָמָה — אֵין מְקַבְּלִין טוּמְאָה לֹא מִדִּבְרֵי תוֹרָה וְלֹא מִדִּבְרֵי סוֹפְרִים. אֶלָּא שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ שֶׁל מַתֶּכֶת. שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ.

Wasn’t it taught in a baraita: Vessels of stone, vessels of dung, and vessels of earth that are not made into earthenware can neither become ritually impure by Torah law nor by rabbinic law? Apparently, even an actual vessel made of clay cannot become ritually impure. Rather, learn from it that this baraita is referring to utensils made of metal. The Gemara concludes: Indeed, conclude from it.

אָמַר מָר: וְלֹא בְּזוֹג שֶׁבְּצַוָּארוֹ, אֲבָל יוֹצֵא הוּא בְּזוֹג שֶׁבִּכְסוּתוֹ.

In that same baraita the Master said that the slave may not go out with a bell that is around his neck, but he may go out with a bell that is on his clothes.

זוֹג שֶׁבְּצַוָּארוֹ אַמַּאי לָא — דִּילְמָא מִיפְּסִיק וְאָתֵי לְאֵיתוֹיֵי? זוֹג שֶׁבִּכְסוּתוֹ נָמֵי לִיחוּשׁ דִּילְמָא מִיפְּסִיק וְאָתֵי לְאֵיתוֹיֵי!

The Gemara asks: With a bell that is around his neck, why may he not go out? It is due to concern lest it be severed and he come to carry it. If so, with a bell on his clothes too, let us be concerned lest it be severed and he come to carry it.

הָכָא בְמַאי עָסְקִינַן — דִּימְחָא בֵּיהּ מוּמְחָא. וְכִדְרַב הוּנָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב יְהוֹשֻׁעַ. דְּאָמַר רַב הוּנָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב יְהוֹשֻׁעַ: כׇּל שֶׁהוּא אָרוּג לֹא גָּזְרוּ.

The Gemara answers: With what are we dealing here? With a case where the bell is woven into the garment, and it is in accordance with the opinion of Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, as Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, said: Anything that is woven into a garment, the Sages did not issue a decree prohibiting going out with it on Shabbat.

אָמַר מָר: לֹא תֵּצֵא בְּהֵמָה לֹא בְּחוֹתָם שֶׁבְּצַוָּארָהּ, וְלֹא בְּחוֹתָם שֶׁבִּכְסוּתָהּ, וְלֹא בְּזוֹג שֶׁבְּצַוָּארָהּ, וְלֹא בְּזוֹג שֶׁבִּכְסוּתָהּ, זֶה וָזֶה אֵין מְקַבְּלִין טוּמְאָה.

In the baraita cited earlier, it was taught that the Master said: An animal may neither go out with a seal that is around its neck, nor with a seal that is on its clothes, nor with a bell that is on its clothes, nor with a bell that is around its neck. Both this and that cannot become ritually impure.

וְזוֹג דִּבְהֵמָה אֵין מְקַבְּלִין טוּמְאָה? וּרְמִינְהוּ: זוֹג שֶׁל בְּהֵמָה — טְמֵאָה,

The Gemara asks: And does a bell of an animal not become ritually impure? The Gemara proceeds to raise a contradiction from that which was taught in another baraita: The bell of an animal can become ritually impure,

וְשֶׁל דֶּלֶת — טָהוֹר.

and the bell of a door is ritually pure. The door itself is not considered a vessel. It is considered part of the house, and therefore its status is like that of the house. The house is attached to the ground, and therefore it cannot become ritually impure. Everything connected to it, including the bell, assumes that status.

שֶׁל דֶּלֶת וַעֲשָׂאוֹ לִבְהֵמָה — טָמֵא. שֶׁל בְּהֵמָה וַעֲשָׂאוֹ לְדֶלֶת, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁחִבְּרוֹ לַדֶּלֶת וּקְבָעוֹ בְּמַסְמְרִים — טָמֵא, שֶׁכׇּל הַכֵּלִים יוֹרְדִין לִידֵי טוּמְאָתָן בְּמַחְשָׁבָה, וְאֵין עוֹלִין מִידֵּי טוּמְאָתָן אֶלָּא בְּשִׁנּוּי מַעֲשֶׂה!

If one took the bell of a door and converted it into a bell for an animal, it can become ritually impure; however, if one took the bell of an animal and converted it into a bell for a door, even though he attached it to the door and even fastened it with nails, it can still become ritually impure because all utensils descend into their state of ritual impurity by means of thought alone, i.e., as a result of a decision to designate them for a specific purpose through which they will become susceptible to ritual impurity, they receive that status immediately. However, they only ascend from their state of ritual impurity by means of an action that effects physical change to the vessel itself. A change in designation alone is ineffective. This baraita states that an animal bell can become ritually impure, contrary to that which was taught in the previous baraita.

לָא קַשְׁיָא: הָא דְּאִית לֵיהּ עִינְבָּל, הָא דְּלֵית לֵיהּ עִינְבָּל.

The Gemara answers: This is not difficult. This baraita, where it was taught that the bell can become ritually impure, is referring to a case where it has a clapper [inbal]. That baraita, where it was taught that the bell cannot become ritually impure, is referring to a case where it does not have a clapper.

מָה נַפְשָׁךְ: אִי מָנָא הוּא, אַף עַל פִּי דְּלֵית לֵיהּ עִינְבָּל. אִי לָאו מָנָא הוּא — עִינְבָּל מְשַׁוֵּי לֵיהּ מָנָא?!

The Gemara asks: Whichever way you look at it, this is difficult. If the bell is a vessel, then even though it has no clapper it should be susceptible to ritual impurity. If it is not a vessel, does a clapper render it a vessel?

אִין, כִּדְרַבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר נַחְמָנִי אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹנָתָן. דְּאָמַר רַבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר נַחְמָנִי אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹנָתָן: מִנַּיִן לְמַשְׁמִיעַ קוֹל בִּכְלֵי מַתָּכוֹת שֶׁהוּא טָמֵא, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״כׇּל דָּבָר אֲשֶׁר יָבֹא בָאֵשׁ תַּעֲבִירוּ בָאֵשׁ״ — אֲפִילּוּ דִּבּוּר, יָבֹא בָּאֵשׁ.

The Gemara answers: Yes, the clapper can determine the bell’s status with regard to ritual impurity, in accordance with that which Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani said that Rabbi Yonatan said. As Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani said that Rabbi Yonatan said: From where is it derived that a metal vessel that produces sound is considered a vessel and can become ritually impure? As it is stated: “Every thing that passes through the fire, you shall make it pass through the fire, and it shall be clean; nevertheless, it shall be purified with the water of sprinkling; and all that does not pass through the fire you shall make to go through water” (Numbers 31:23). And the Sages interpret the verse homiletically: Every thing [davar], even speech [dibbur]; in other words, even an object that makes a sound you shall pass through fire to purify it because it is a vessel.

בְּמַאי אוֹקִימְתָּא — בִּדְלֵית לֵיהּ עִינְבָּל? אֵימָא מְצִיעֲתָא: וְלֹא בְּזוֹג שֶׁבְּצַוָּארוֹ, אֲבָל יוֹצֵא הוּא בְּזוֹג שֶׁבִּכְסוּתוֹ, וְזֶה וָזֶה מְקַבְּלִין טוּמְאָה. אִי דְּלֵית לֵיהּ עִינְבָּל מִי מְקַבְּלִי טוּמְאָה?

However, the matter can be clarified further. In what case did you establish the baraita; in the case of a bell that does not have a clapper? If so, say the middle clause of that baraita: And he may not go out with a bell that is hung around his neck; however, he may go out with a bell that is on his clothes, and both this and that can become ritually impure. If it is referring to a bell that does not have a clapper, can it become ritually impure?

וּרְמִינְהוּ: הָעוֹשֶׂה זֹגִין לְמַכְתֶּשֶׁת וְלַעֲרִיסָה וּלְמִטְפְּחוֹת סְפָרִים וּלְמִטְפְּחוֹת תִּינוֹקוֹת, יֵשׁ לָהֶם עִינְבָּל — טְמֵאִין, אֵין לָהֶם עִינְבָּל — טְהוֹרִין, נִיטְּלוּ עִינְבְּלֵיהֶן — עֲדַיִן טוּמְאָתָן עֲלֵיהֶם.

The Gemara raises a contradiction from the Tosefta: One who makes bells for the mortar used to crush spices, and for the cradle, and for mantles of Torah scrolls, and for coverings of small children, if they have a clapper they can become ritually impure, and if they do not have a clapper they are ritually pure and cannot become impure. If after they became ritually impure their clappers were removed, their ritual impurity still remains upon them. Apparently, even with regard to bells used by people, the original existence of a clapper determines whether or not the bell is considered a vessel.

הָנֵי מִילֵּי בְּתִינוֹק, דִּלְקָלָא עָבְדִי לֵיהּ. אֲבָל גָּדוֹל — תַּכְשִׁיט הוּא לֵיהּ, אַף עַל גַּב דְּלֵית לֵיהּ עִינְבָּל.

The Gemara answers: This applies only to the bells of a small child, since they are placed on him to produce sound. If the bell does not make a sound, it serves no purpose and, consequently, cannot become ritually impure. However, with regard to an adult, the bell is an ornament for him even though it does not have a clapper.

אָמַר מָר: נִיטְּלוּ עִינְבְּלֵיהֶן עֲדַיִן טוּמְאָתָן עֲלֵיהֶן. לְמַאי חֲזוּ? אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: הוֹאִיל שֶׁהַהֶדְיוֹט יָכוֹל לְהַחֲזִירוֹ.

It was taught in the Tosefta that the Master said: If their clappers were removed after they became ritually impure, their ritual impurity still remains upon them. The Gemara wonders: For what use are they suited after their clappers are removed? They are essentially broken and should therefore become ritually pure. Abaye said: The reason that their impurity remains is because a common person is able to replace the clapper into the bell. According to Abaye, with regard to any vessel that comes apart, if a common person is capable of reassembling it and it does not require the expertise of a craftsman, it is not considered broken and its ritual impurity is not nullified.

מֵתִיב רָבָא: הַזּוּג וְהָעִינְבָּל חִבּוּר.

Rava raised an objection to this explanation from that which was taught: The connection between the bell and the clapper, this is a connection. Therefore, if they are detached from each other, the bell should be considered broken.

וְכִי תֵּימָא, הָכִי קָאָמַר: אַף עַל גַּב דְּלָא מְחַבַּר — כְּמַאן דִּמְחַבַּר דָּמֵי. וְהָתַנְיָא: מַסְפּוֹרֶת שֶׁל פְּרָקִים וְאִיזְמֵל שֶׁל רָהִיטְנֵי — חִבּוּר לַטּוּמְאָה וְאֵין חִבּוּר לַהַזָּאָה.

And he adds: And if you say that when employing the term connection, it is saying as follows: Even though it is not connected, it has the legal status as if it were connected. Wasn’t it taught in a baraita: The connection between the different parts of scissors made of different parts that are made to come apart and the connection between the blade of a carpenter’s plane, which can be removed from its handle, and its handle are considered a connection with regard to contracting ritual impurity? If one part becomes ritually impure, the other parts become ritually impure as well. The baraita continues: However, they are not considered a connection with regard to the sprinkling of the waters of a purification offering. When waters of purification are sprinkled on these implements in order to purify them from ritual impurity imparted by a corpse (see Numbers 19:17–19), the water must be sprinkled on each part individually.

וְאָמְרִינַן: מָה נַפְשָׁךְ, אִי חִבּוּר הוּא — אֲפִלּוּ לְהַזָּאָה, וְאִי לָא חִבּוּר הוּא — אֲפִילּוּ לְטוּמְאָה נָמֵי לָא!

The Gemara asks: Whichever way you look at it, there is a difficulty: If it is considered a connection, they should be considered connected even with regard to sprinkling; and if they are not considered a connection, they should not be so considered even with regard to ritual impurity.

וְאָמַר רַבָּה: דְּבַר תּוֹרָה, בִּשְׁעַת מְלָאכָה — חִבּוּר בֵּין לְטוּמְאָה בֵּין לְהַזָּאָה. שֶׁלֹּא בִּשְׁעַת מְלָאכָה — אֵינוֹ חִבּוּר לֹא לְטוּמְאָה וְלֹא לְהַזָּאָה. וְגָזְרוּ עַל טוּמְאָה שֶׁלֹּא בִּשְׁעַת מְלָאכָה מִשּׁוּם טוּמְאָה שֶׁהִיא בִּשְׁעַת מְלָאכָה, וְעַל הַזָּאָה שֶׁהִיא בִּשְׁעַת מְלָאכָה מִשּׁוּם הַזָּאָה שֶׁלֹּא בִּשְׁעַת מְלָאכָה.

And Rabba said: By Torah law, when in use, they are considered a connection, both with regard to ritual impurity and with regard to sprinkling. And when not in use, even if the parts are connected, since they are made to come apart and they are commonly dismantled, they are neither considered a connection with regard to ritual impurity nor with regard to sprinkling. And the Sages issued a decree that they should be considered a connection with regard to ritual impurity even when not in use, due to ritual impurity when in use. If one component becomes ritually impure, the other component becomes ritually impure as well. And, as a further stringency, they issued a decree that they should not be considered a connection with regard to sprinkling even when in use, due to sprinkling when not in use. The waters of purification must be sprinkled on each part individually. Nevertheless, this type of connection with regard to ritual impurity is only relevant when the two parts are actually connected. When the parts are separate, even if they can be reattached easily, the vessel is considered broken. This contradicts Abaye’s explanation.

אֶלָּא אָמַר רָבָא:

Rather, Rava said: It should be explained differently: