Babylonian Talmud: Tractate Shabbath

Folio 52a

his mind may be appeased. Said he: An ass of evil habits, such as this one, may it go forth wearing a halter on the Sabbath? — Thus did your father say in Samuel's name, he answered him, The halachah is as Hananiah.¹

The School of Manasseh taught: If grooves are made between a goat's horns, it may be led out with a bit on the Sabbath.²  R. Joseph asked: What if one fastened it through its beard:³  since It is painful [to the goat] to tug at it,⁴  it will not come to do so;⁵  or perhaps it may chance to loosen and fall, and he will come to carry it four cubits in the street? The question stands over.

We learnt elsewhere: Nor with the strap between its horns.⁶  R. Jeremiah b. Abba said: Rab and Samuel differ therein: One maintains: Whether as an ornament or as a guard, it is forbidden; while the other rules: As an ornament it is forbidden; as a guard it is permitted. R. Joseph observed: It may be proved that it was Samuel who maintained: As an ornament it is forbidden; as a guard it is permitted. For R. Huna b. Hiyya said in Samuel's name: The halachah is as Hananiah.⁷  Said Abaye to him, On the contrary, It may be proved that it was Samuel who maintained: Whether as an ornament or as a guard it is forbidden. For Rab Judah said in Samuel's name: They transposed them [in their questions] before Rabbi: What about one animal going forth with [the accoutrement] of the other? Said R. Ishmael b. R. Jose before him, Thus did my father rule: Four animals may go out with a bit: A horse, mule, camel and ass. What does it exclude?⁸  Surely it excludes a camel [from being led out] with a nose-ring?⁹  Delete the latter on account of the former.¹⁰  And what [reason] do you see to delete the latter on account of the former? Delete the former on account of the latter! — Because we find that it was Samuel who ruled: As an ornament it is forbidden; as a guard it is permitted. [For it was stated:]¹¹  R. Hiyya b. Ashi said in Rab's name: Whether as an ornament or as a guard it is forbidden; while R. Hiyya b. Abin said in Samuel's name: As an ornament it is forbidden; as a guard it is permitted.

An objection is raised: If it [the red heifer] was tied up in a loft by a cord,¹²  it is fit.¹³  Now if you say that it is a burden, surely Scripture saith, Upon which never came yoke?¹⁴  — Abaye answered: This is when it is led from one town to another.¹⁵  Raba said: The red heifer is different, because its value is high. Rabina said: This refers to an intractable [animal].¹⁶

A HORSE WITH ITS CHAIN, etc. What is GO OUT and what is LED? — R. Huna said: [It means,] They may either go out [with the chain] wound round them,¹⁷  or led [by the chain]; while Samuel maintained: [It means,] They may go out led [by the chain], but they may not go out [with the chain] wound round them. In a Baraitha it was taught: They may go out [with the chain] wound round then, [ready] to be led.¹⁸

R. Joseph said: I saw the calves of R. Huna's house go forth with their cords¹⁹  wound about them, on the Sabbath. When R. Dimi came,²⁰  he related in R. Hanina's name: The mules of Rabbi's house went forth with their reins on the Sabbath. The scholars propounded: 'Wound about them', or 'led'? — Come and hear: When R. Samuel b. Judah came, he related in R. Hanina's name: The mules of Rabbi's house went forth on the Sabbath with their reins wound about them. Said the Rabbis before R. Assi, This [dictum] of R. Samuel b. Judah is unnecessary, [because] it may be deduced from R. Dimi's [statement]. For should you think that R. Dimi meant 'led', it would follow from Rab Judah's [statement] in Samuel's name. For Rab Judah said in Samuel's name: They [the scholars] transposed them [in their questions] before Rabbi: What about one animal going forth with [the accoutrement] of the other? Said R. Ishmael son of R. Jose before him, Thus did my father rule: Four animals may go out with a bit: a horse, mule, camel, and ass!²¹  — Said R. Assi to them, This [R. Samuel b. Judah's statement] is necessary. For if it were derived from Rab Judah's [dictum], I could argue: He [R. Ishmael Son of R. Jose] stated it before him, but he did not accept it. Hence R. Dimi's statement informs us [that he did]. And if there were R. Dimi's [alone], I could argue: It means 'led', but not merely 'wound round'; hence R. Samuel b. Judah's [statement] informs us [otherwise].

AND, [WATER OF LUSTRATION] MAY BE SPRINKLED UPON THEM, AND THEY MAY BE IMMERSED IN THEIR PLACE. Are we to say that they can contract uncleanness? But we learnt: A man's ring is unclean,²²  but the rings of animals and utensils and all other rings

1. Hence even if it is an extra guard it is permitted.
2. Which is fastened to the grooves. But otherwise it is forbidden, because It can easily slip off the head, which is very narrow, and its owner may carry it in the street.
3. Making a circle of the beard and inserting the bit through it.
4. On account of the beard.
5. Hence we may assume that it is safe there, and is permitted.
6. V. infra 54b.
7. Hence he holds that an extra guard is permitted, and this includes the strap between a cow's horns.
8. v. supra 51b.
9. That being forbidden because it is an extra guard. Since Samuel quotes it with evident approval, it is his view too.
10. Because these two statements of Samuel are contradictory.
11. Other edd. omit the bracketed passage, and substitute: What is our decision on the matter? — It was stated:
12. Or, the reins.
13. For its purpose; v. Num. XIX, 2 Seq.
14. Num. XIX, 2. A burden is a yoke.
15. The cord or reins are then required as an ordinary, not an additional, guard.
16. According to both answers, what would be an extra guard elsewhere is only an ordinary one here.
17. Even that is permitted.
18. I.e., either that it must be wound round it loosely, so that one can insert his hand between the animal's neck and the chain and grasp it; or that a portion of the cord must be left free, whereby the animal may be led.
19. Lit., 'bit'.
20. V. p. 12, n. 9.
21. V. supra 51b.
22. I.e., it is liable to uncleanness.

are clean!¹  — Said R. Isaac: It [our Mishnah] refers to such as pass from [being] men's ornaments to [become] animals' ornaments;²  while R. Joseph said: [They³  become unclean] because a man leads the animal by them. [For] was it not taught: An animal's staff⁴  of metal⁵  is susceptible to uncleanness.' What is the reason? Since a man beats [the animal] with it. So here too; [they are unclean,] because a man leads [the animals] by them.

AND THEY MAY BE IMMERSED IN THEIR PLACE. But there is an intervention?⁶  — Said R. Ammi: It means that he beat them out.⁷  Shall we say that R. Ammi holds as R. Joseph? For if as R. Isaac, who maintained that it refers to such as pass from [being] men's ornaments to [become] animals' ornaments; since he beat them out, he has performed an act, and their uncleanness vanishes. For we learnt: All utensils enter upon their uncleanness by intention, but are relieved from their uncleanness only by a change-effecting act!⁸  — He holds as R. Judah, who maintained, An act to adapt [an object] is not [considered] an act.⁹  For it was taught: R. Judah said: A change-effecting act was not mentioned¹⁰  where it adapts [the object], save where it spoils it. In a Baraitha it was taught: It [our Mishnah] refers to [chains] with movable links.¹¹

A certain disciple from Upper Galilee asked R. Eleazar: I have heard that a distinction is drawn between one ring and another?¹²  Perhaps you heard it only in reference to the Sabbath;¹³  for if in connection with uncleanness, they are all alike.¹⁴  Now, in connection with uncleanness, are they all alike? Surely we learnt: A man's ring is unclean, but the rings of animals and utensils and all other rings are clean.¹⁵  — He¹⁶  too was referring to men's [rings]. And are all men's [rings] alike? Surely it was taught: A ring made to gird one's loins therewith or to fasten [the clothes about] the shoulders is clean, and only a finger [ring] was declared to be unclean! — He too was referring to finger rings. And are all finger rings alike? Surely we learnt: If the ring is of metal and its signet is of coral,¹⁷  It Is unclean; if it is of coral while the signet is of metal, it is clean.¹⁸  — He too referred to [rings] wholly of metal.

He asked him further: I have heard that we distinguish between one needle and another? Perhaps you heard it only in respect to the Sabbath,¹⁹  for if in the matter of uncleanness, they are all alike. Now, in the matter of uncleanness, are they all alike? Surely we learnt: If the eyehole or the point of a needle is removed, it is clean! — He referred to a whole [needle]. And are all whole [needles] alike? Surely we learnt: If a needle gathers rust and it hinders the sewing, it is clean; if not, it is unclean. And the School of R. Jannai said: Providing that its mark is perceptible.²⁰  He referred to a bright [needle]. But are all bright [needles] alike? Surely it was taught; A needle, whether containing an eyehole or not, may be handled on the Sabbath;²¹  while a needle with an eyehole was specified only in respect to uncleanness.²²  Surely Abaye interpreted it according to Raba as referring to unfinished utensils!²³

MISHNAH. AN ASS MAY GO OUT WITH ITS CUSHION IF IT IS TIED TO IT.²⁴  RAMS MAY GO OUT COUPLED [LEBUBIN]. EWES MAY GO OUT [WITH THEIR POSTERIORS] EXPOSED [SHEHUZOTH], TIED [KEBULOTH], AND COVERED [KEBUNOTH]; GOATS MAY GO OUT [WITH THEIR UDDERS] TIED UP. R. JOSE FORBIDS IN ALL THESE CASES, SAVE EWES THAT ARE COVERED. R. JUDAH SAID: GOATS MAY GO OUT [WITH THEIR UDDERS] TIED IN ORDER TO DRY UP,²⁵  BUT NOT TO SAVE THEIR MILK.²⁶

1. Because they do not rank either as utensils or ornaments, v. Kel. XIII.
2. And they had become unclean as human ornaments. But when they are animals' ornaments they cannot become unclean, though they retain the defilement contracted before.
3. The appurtenance mentioned in our Mishnah.
4. With which it is beaten.
5. Flat wooden implements are not susceptible to defilement.
6. Nothing must come between the object that is immersed and the water; but here the neck of the animal intervenes.
7. Sc. the rings, halters, etc., were beaten thin, so that they fit loosely about the animal and leave room for the water to touch it on all sides.
8. Utensils become unclean only from when they are quite finished for use; if they still require smoothing, scraping, etc., they are not liable to uncleanness, unless their owner declares his intention to use them as they are. On the other hand, having done so, it is not enough that he subsequently declares that he will not use them, in order to relieve them from their susceptibility to defilement, unless he actually begins smoothing them. Or, if the utensils are unclean, it is insufficient for their owner to state that he will not use them any more, so that they should lose the status of utensils and become clean, but must render them unfit for use by an act, e.g., break or make a hole in them.
9. To annul the status of a utensil. Hence he can agree with R. Isaac in the explanation of the Mishnah.
10. In this connection.
11. Loosely joined and fitting roomily round the animal's neck, so that the water can enter.
12. In respect to what is that drawn?
13. Where a distinction is made between a signet ring and an ordinary one; v. infra 59a.
14. Lit., 'this and this are one'.
15. V. supra 52b.
16. R. Eleazar.
17. Probably a species of cedar-tree.
18. Only a metal ring becomes unclean, the matter being determined by the ring itself, not the signet. This shows that a distinction is drawn also in connection with uncleanness between finger ring and finger ring.
19. For carrying a needle with an eye in it from public or private ground or vice versa one is liable to a sin-offering but not if it has no eye.
20. I.e., providing it is recognizable as a needle — only then is it unclean. Others: providing that the mark of the rust is perceptible when one sews with it — that is regarded as hindering the sewing and makes it clean.
21. Like any other utensil.
22. This shows that there is a distinction in connection with defilement between needle and needle also.
23. I.e., if it is unfinished and a hole is still to be punched therein, it is not liable to defilement. But if it is thus finished off without an eye, e.g., as a kind of bodkin, it is a utensil and liable to uncleanness, no distinction being drawn in connection with defilement between needle and needle. In connection with Sabbath, however, even the former may be handled, for one may decide to use it in its unfinished state, e.g., as a toothpick or for removing splinters from the flesh, and so it ranks as a utensil.
24. The cushion is to protect it from the cold.
25. To cease giving milk.
26. A pouch is sometimes loosely tied round the udder to prevent the milk from dripping; hence it may fall off and therefore R. Judah forbids it (v. 53a). But in the second case it is tied very tightly.