Shabbat 51b — the Talmud in English

And if not—

rather, the pot is completely covered with the covering of the muktzeh,

he may not take it and return

it. For he has nothing by which to grasp it. And it is forbidden to move the covering from its place because it is muktzeh.

[And even if it is covered at its sides with something that may be moved, so that seemingly he can uncover its surroundings, grasp the walls of the pot, and raise it, and afterward tilt it on its side and the covering will fall by itself—which is moving indirectly, which is permitted—in any event, the pot itself is forbidden to move. Because it has become a basis for a forbidden object on account of the covering of the muktzeh that is upon it. Rashi] .

Rabbi Judah says: Fine flax tow, it

adds heat

like manure:

therefore one may not insulate in it even while it is still day.

And Rabbi Judah further said:

They may place a hot-water urn

[which is made of copper]

upon a hot-water urn

that is found upon the fire, in order to preserve its heat.

And

likewise they may place

a pot

[which is made of earthenware]

upon a pot. And

likewise

a pot upon a hot-water urn.

And in the version before us it states

“But not a pot upon a hot-water urn.

And the Masoret ha-Shas wrote that this is an error. And no one disagrees concerning this].

But not

place

a hot-water urn upon a pot.

Because the pot increases the heat and adds heat to the hot-water urn that is upon it. [This is the version in the books before us. But in the Tosefta we read, “And they place, etc., a hot-water urn upon a pot”].

And he plasters its mouth

of the pot or the hot-water urn

on Shabbat with dough

that was kneaded while it was still day.

And they did not

permit placing a hot-water urn upon a hot-water urn when the water in the upper one is cold, and he places it

in order that it should become hot

through the lower hot-water urn.

And it is permitted to do this only when both of them are hot. And he places it

only in order that they should be

the upper ones

preserved

and their heat should not diminish.

And just as one may not insulate hot food, so one may not insulate cold food,

as a decree lest one come to insulate hot food.

And

Rabbi permitted insulating cold food.

And they may not crush

[or grind]

neither snow nor hail, in order that their water should flow!

Because he thereby produces water from them on Shabbat. And it resembles labor, since he creates this water.

But he may place

the snow and the hail

into the cup

of wine

or into the bowl

in order to cool what is inside it.

And

even though they melt by themselves,

he is not concerned,

since he is not producing it by hand.

We have returned to you, chapter “In What May One Insulate”

Introduction to the chapter “With What May an Animal Go Out”

In this chapter the laws of an animal’s going out on Shabbat are explained, that there are objects which one may not place upon it so that it will go out with them.

And there are three principal reasons for this, which are explained in the Gemara:

a.

Because they are considered a burden.

b.

Lest they fall, and the owners may carry them in a forbidden manner.

c.

Because it appears as though the owner is going to the marketplace to sell it.

And the first Mishna deals with things that are considered a burden.

Mishna:

A person is commanded concerning the resting of his animal on Shabbat, with regard to all the labors that were prohibited to the person himself , and just as carrying out a burden from one domain to another and carrying it four cubits in the public domain was prohibited to a person, so too he is commanded that his animal not go out with a burden. And just as only a burden was prohibited to a person, and not something that is needed for his body [such as an ornament], so too he is not commanded that his animal not go out with something that is needed for its body.

And the Mishna explains:

with what may an animal go out

to the public domain,

and with what may it not go out?

A camel goes out with an apsar

with its reins,

and

the

naaka

the female camel

with a hatam

[this will be explained in the Gemara],

and

the

lubdekim

[a species of donkey]

with a prumvia, and a horse with a shir

[a band in which a ring is fixed, and a strap is inserted through it, by which the animal is pulled]. Since these are things with which the animal is kept under control. And in the Gemara it will be explained what these implements are.

And all בעלי-החיים with a shir

animals that customarily have a ring placed around their necks [such as hunting dogs and small animals on whose necks they place a “shir” for adornment

], go out with a shir, and are led with a shir.

And in the Gemara this will be explained.

And

if these implements became impure with corpse impurity,

one sprinkles upon them

the waters of purification

in their place,

when they are on the animal’s neck.

And

likewise

they immerse them

—these implements—from their impurity,

in their place.

They place the animal in the water in order to immerse the shir.

And it is not necessary to remove them from the animal in order to immerse them or to sprinkle upon them separately.

Gemara:

We learned in the Mishna: The naaka goes out with a hatam.

And we raise an objection concerning this:

What is “naaka

and what is

“with a hatam”?

Rabba bar bar Chana said: A naakta—

Сказал Раба бар бар Хана: «Самка верблюда

white

a large and white female camel—

with an iron ring

an iron ring with which they pierce its nose and which they insert through it. Since it runs away, and keeping it under control is difficult, it is kept under control only through this.

We learned in the Mishna:

And the lubdekim with a prumvia.

And we explain:

Rav Huna said:

Lubdekim—

a Libyan donkey,

a donkey that comes from the country of Libya—

tied with iron cheek-pieces,

a bridle on the cheek and head, made of iron.

Levi sent money

sent money

to

the people

of Bei Hozai

[a place], in order

to buy for him

that they should buy for him there

a Libyan donkey

with those coins.

They tied up

[they bundled] the money of the people of Bei Hozai

and sent it to him

and sent it back to him, and placed inside the bundle

barley

—barley. For they did not want to buy him a donkey, because Libya is far from Babylonia, a journey of half a year [as explained in chapter “The Robber”].

And their intention in sending him barley was

to say,

to hint to him

that the gait of a donkey

the steps of a donkey—are according to the measure of the

barley

[that it eats]. And they hinted to him by this that he should buy a donkey in his own city and feed it barley constantly. Through this, his donkey would be excellent and good.

Rav Yehuda said in the name of Shmuel:

The students would ask and

exchange

their question

before Rabbi.

And this is how they asked: To give an implement

of

one animal

to

another animal

in order

that it go out with it on Shabbat,

what is the law?

And they exchanged their question: Once they asked about a naaka with an apsar, and once they asked about a camel with a hatam. Is this considered something made to protect the animal, and therefore permitted, or is it considered a burden, and therefore forbidden?

And Rabbi answered:

As for a naaka with an apsar, you need not ask.

For it is certainly forbidden,

since it is not kept under control by it,

for it is not kept under control by an apsar, but specifically by a hatam—

it is a burden,

the apsar is considered a burden, and it is forbidden for it to go out with it.

When you ask: A camel with a hatam—

what is the law?

Shall we say

since it is sufficient for it with

the protection of

an apsar

and it does not need the additional protection of a hatam, it follows that the hatam

is a burden

for it, and it is forbidden for it to go out with it?

Or perhaps, since in the end it protects the camel, it is permitted. For

“excessive protection”

—

an addition of protection—

we do not say that it is a burden.

He said before him

[before Rabbi]

Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosei: Thus my father said: Four animals go out with an apsar: the horse, the mule, the camel, and the donkey.

And we infer:

To exclude what?

What did Rabbi Yosei renew with his statement?

Is it not to exclude a camel with a hatam

which is forbidden? For since these four animals are kept under control with an apsar, they are forbidden with a hatam, because every excessive protection is a burden.

And we reject this:

No,

Rabbi Yosei did not renew this, but rather

to exclude a naaka,

which does not go out

with an apsar.

Since it is not kept under control by this, it is a burden for it.

It was taught in a baraita: The lubdekim and a camel go out with an apsar.

For the lubdekim too, protection by an apsar is sufficient .

And we conclude: The Gemara’s uncertainty whether excessive protection is a burden or not

is like

a dispute of

tannaim

that is taught.

For it was taught:

No wild animal goes out with a sogar

a rope tied around its neck.

Hanania says:

The wild animal

goes out with a sogar, and with anything by which it is kept under control.

And we raise an objection concerning this:

With what are we dealing?

If you say with a large wild animal, is a

protection of

a sogar sufficient for it?

Since it is not kept under control by it, it is considered a burden; why does Hanania permit it?

Rather, with a small wild animal;

if so, why does the first tanna prohibit it? Is it the case that

a sogar is not sufficient for it?

Rather, is it not that a cat is the difference between them?

Since it does not desire to run away, it does not need the protection of a sogar; rather, the protection of a small rope is sufficient for it.

And the dispute is:

The first tanna holds: Since an ordinary cord is sufficient for it,

the sogar

is a burden

for it, because it is excessive protection for it.

And Hanania holds: Anything

that is

excessive protection, we do not say

about it that its law

is that it is a burden.

Rav Huna bar Hiyya said in the name of Shmuel: The halakha is in accordance with Hanania.

For excessive protection is not a burden.

Levi, son of Rav Huna bar Hiyya, and Rabba, son of Rav Huna, were walking on the road. The donkey of Levi went ahead

[preceded]

of the donkey of Rabba, son of Rav Huna. Rabba, son of Rav Huna, was upset

by this, because he was greater than Levi. And he thought that Levi had made his donkey go ahead intentionally .

He said

Levi to himself:

Let me say to him

to Rabba, son of Rav Huna,

a matter,

to inform him that I did not do this intentionally.

So that ![](pamud.bmp "

Exact page location")

his

mind should settle

and

he should be appeased.