Shabbat 53b — the Talmud in English

And the Gemara proves it:

this is also precise, for it teaches ![](pamud.bmp "

exact page location")

analogous to an amulet, which were taught together in a beraita. Just as an amulet is because of the distress of illness, so too a traskal is because of distress. And this applies only to young animals, which experience distress.

which were taught together in the beraita, a tannaitic source not included in the Mishna. Just as an amulet is permitted because of the pain of illness, so too the feed-basket is permitted because of pain. This applies only to young animals, which experience pain.

And we conclude:

learn from it!

The master said:

and not

go out

with an amulet, even though it is proven.

And we object:

but we learned in the Mishna

below:

and a person shall not

go out

with an unproven amulet [

whose benefit in healing has not been demonstrated three times].

This

amulet

which is proven is indeed permitted, and it is permitted to go out with it. And what is different about an animal from a person? Just as the amulet is considered the safeguarding of a person’s body, and not a burden, so it should be permitted with an animal.

And we answer:

And we answer:

here too,

here also it is speaking of an amulet

which is unproven.

And we are astonished:

but “even though it is proven,”

it teaches!?

And we answer: it is speaking of an amulet which is

proven for a person.

But

it is not proven for an animal.

Therefore the animal shall not go out with it.

And we examine this:

is there

such an amulet

which is proven for a person but is not proven for an animal?

And we answer:

yes. A person, who has mazal [

an angel who intercedes on his behalf] , the amulet

assists him.

But

an animal, which does not have mazal, the amulet

the amulet

does not assist it.

And again we object:

if so, since it is speaking of one that is not proven for an animal,

since the case concerns an amulet that is not proven effective for an animal,

what is this “stringency with an animal over a person” that the beraita said? For the same is true with a person: if the amulet is not proven for him, the person too may not go out with it.

taught by the beraita? The same is true of a person: If the amulet is not proven effective for him, the person may not go out with it either.

And we answer:

do you think that “this stringency”

“applies to the amulet”?

It applies to the sandal!

It is not so. Rather,

it applies to the sandal!

For although a person goes out with his sandal into the public domain, an animal does not go out with it, because we are concerned that it may fall, and he may come to carry it in the public domain.

Come and hear: one may apply a knife

with oil

and remove

the scabs of a wound

for a person. But one may neither apply a knife nor remove scabs for an animal.

What, is it not

speaking in a situation

where there is

still

a wound, and

one removes scabs for a person

because of distress?

But for an animal it is forbidden to remove scabs even because of distress.

And this is difficult both for Rav and for Shmuel, who permit any exertion that is because of distress.

And we answer:

no, it is not speaking of a situation in which there is still a wound, but after

the case does not concern a wound that still exists. Rather, it is after

the

wound has completed

and healed.

And

one does not apply oil or remove scabs because of distress, but

because of pleasure.

Therefore it is forbidden with an animal .

Come and hear: an animal that was seized

by an illness of

blood ,

which becomes hot and appears full of blood—

we do not place it in water so that it should cool down.

But

a person seized by blood—we place him in water so that he should cool down.

And it is proven that it is forbidden to exert oneself for an animal even in a place of distress. This is difficult for Rav and for Shmuel.

Ulla said:

the reason for the prohibition with an animal is

a decree

that was enacted

because of the grinding of medicinal herbs.

For it was for this reason that the Sages prohibited every remedy on Shabbat: lest they come to permit grinding medicinal herbs for a remedy on Shabbat, and violate the prohibition of grinding, which is from the Torah.

And we object:

if so,

let us also prohibit with

a person as well

placing him in water, because of this decree, since he does so for the purpose of a remedy.

And we answer:

a person

does not appear to be standing in water for the purpose of a remedy. Rather, he

appears to be cooling himself [

refrigerating] in water; and since it does not appear as a remedy, they did not decree concerning it.

And again we object:

if so,

with

an animal as well

let us permit it because it

appears to be cooling itself,

and it is not doing so as a remedy .

And we answer:

no; it is

not the way of being

cooling oneself for an animal.

Therefore everyone knows that he is doing it for a remedy, and they will come to permit grinding medicinal herbs for a remedy.

And we object:

do we decree for an animal

in a situation of loss?

But it was taught: if it was

the animal

standing outside the Shabbat boundary,

he

calls to it, and it comes.

And the Gemara understood that the animal was standing outside the boundary of the person calling it.

And we do not decree

lest, by permitting him to call it,

perhaps he will come

himself outside his boundary

to bring

the animal himself, and violate the prohibition of boundaries. Since the animal will be lost if he does not bring it to himself, they did not decree concerning it.

And we have learned that they did not decree concerning an animal in a place where there is loss; so why did they decree concerning an animal seized by blood, because of the grinding of medicinal herbs?

And Ravina said:

in truth, they did decree even in a place of loss. Rather, it is speaking of an animal entrusted to a shepherd, whose Shabbat boundary is like the shepherd’s boundary—that is, two thousand cubits in every direction from the place where the shepherd’s feet are. And the one who calls it is the owner, whose Shabbat boundary differs from that of the animal [which is established according to the shepherd’s boundary].

And for example, its boundary was

of Shabbat

contained within the boundary

of Shabbat

of his.

Thus, even if he went out to the animal’s location, he would still not have gone outside his own boundary. Therefore there is no concern that he will go outside the boundary .

And that which he is forbidden to bring it directly is because the animal is standing outside its own boundary. And anyone who goes outside the boundary, whether a person or an animal, has only four cubits and is forbidden to walk farther than that. Therefore, if he brings it to himself directly, he thereby violates the prohibition of meḥamer [that he is forbidden to cause a Shabbat prohibition directly with his animal], by taking it outside its four cubits .

But it is permitted to call it so that it should come on its own, for he was not warned concerning the boundary of his animal .

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: the decree

of

the grinding

of medicinal herbs itself with an animal is a dispute

among

the tannaim! And there is a tanna who did not decree concerning other remedies for an animal because of grinding medicinal herbs.

As it was taught in a beraita: An animal that ate vetch

For it was taught: an animal that ate vetches

in great quantity, and because of this was seized by an illness and needs to have a bowel movement,

one may not run it in the courtyard so that it should become relieved [

so that its intestines should be relieved and it should have a bowel movement], because it is a remedy. And they decreed because of grinding medicinal herbs.

And Rabbi Oshaya permits .

For he holds that they did not decree this decree with an animal, because a person is not so distraught over the remedy of his animal .

Rava expounded: the halakha is like Rabbi Oshaya,

that they did not decree concerning the healing of an animal because of the grinding of medicinal herbs.

The master said: The zav may not go out with his pouch, nor may goats with the pouch that is on their udders.

And we objected:

But was it not taught: Goats go out with the pouch that is on their udders!?

Rav Yehuda said: It is not difficult.

Here,

where we learned “go out,” it is speaking

when it is tightened,

when the pouch is tightened well.

And here,

where we learned “nor goats with the pouch that is on their udders,” it is speaking

when it is not tightened,

because since it is not tightened, we are concerned that it will fall, and the owner may carry it in the public domain.

Rav Yosef said: Have you taken the tannaim from the world?

That is to say: Have you lost all the tannaim, so that you cannot find tannaim who disagreed about this? And why do you need to force the beraitot into two different ukimtot? Is it not a dispute of

tannaim?

And each beraita follows a different tanna.

For we learned in the Mishna: The goats go out bound

with a pouch that is on their udders.

And

Rabbi Yosei forbids them all, except for shorn sheep.

Rabbi Yehuda says: Goats go out bound

in order

to dry

their milk. For this purpose, he tightens the pouch well, and there is no concern that it will fall. And it is likewise not considered a burden, for it is for the sake of its body: so that the milk will not diminish it.

But not

for the sake of

milking

their milk into the pouch! For by filling the pouch with milk, it is a burden.

It follows that one beraita follows the first tanna, who permits it, and the other beraita follows Rabbi Yosei, who forbids it.

And if you wish, say: Both this and that are according to Rabbi Yehuda. And it is not difficult.

Here,

the beraita that we learned permits it, speaks of being bound in order

to dry.

And

here,

what we learned is forbidden, speaks of being bound in order

to milk.

the milk.

It was taught: Rav Yehuda said: There was an incident involving the goats of the house of Antioch, whose udders were large,

and dragged on the thorns.

And they made pouches for them, so that their udders would not be scratched.

The Sages taught: There was an incident involving a certain man whose wife died. And she left a son to nurse. And he did not have money to give a wet nurse. And a miracle was performed for him, and breasts opened for him, like the two breasts of a woman. And he nursed his son.

Rav Yosef said: Come and see how great this man was, that such a miracle was performed for him!

Abaye said to him: On the contrary, how inferior this man was, that the orders of Creation were changed for him .

Rav Yehuda said: Come and see how difficult a person’s sustenance is, for

in order that his son should nurse,

the orders of Creation were changed for him,

and he did not merit being supported in the ordinary way.

Rav Naḥman said: Know

that this is so,

for

behold,

a miracle occurs

from Heaven to save several human lives. But

it is not

common that

sustenance be created [

that it be created]

for the righteous

in their homes, such as that they should find wheat growing in their storehouses.

It follows that obtaining sustenance is more difficult than saving lives by means of a miracle.

The Sages taught: There was an incident involving a certain man who married a woman with no hands. And he did not recognize it

that she had no hands

until the day of her death.

Rav said: Come and see how modest this woman was.

For

because she covered herself,

her husband did not recognize it

Rabbi Ḥiyya said to him: This is not the woman’s virtue, since

this was her way.

For it is the way of every woman to cover herself. And all the more so this woman, who needed to cover her defect.

Rather, how modest this man was, that he did not recognize in his wife

that she had no hands.

We learned in our Mishna:

Males go out levuvin.

And we raised the question:

What is the meaning of “levuvin”?

Rav Huna said: Toterei!

They tie them together, two by two, so that they will not flee. And the Mishna teaches that they go out with this bond, for it is not a burden but rather a need for preserving their bodies.

And we raised the question:

What indicates that this “levuvin”—

is an expression of bringing close

[connection]

?

And we answered:

From that which is written, “You have captured my heart, my sister, bride.”

For the Holy One, blessed be He, said to the Congregation of Israel: “You have brought Me close to you,” on account of the beauty of your deeds.

Ulla said:

Going out “levuvin” means that they go out with

a hide that they tie opposite their hearts, so that wolves will not fall upon them.

For it is the way of wolves to seize the animal by its heart. [And levuvin is an expression derived from “heart”.]

And we objected: If so, why did the Mishna mention specifically males? Are

wolves

specifically

upon males do they fall,

and

upon females do they not fall?

And we answered: Specifically males go out levuvin,

because

the males

walk

[go]

at the head of the herd.

And we objected again: Do

wolves

specifically

upon the head of the herd do they fall,

and

at the end of the herd do they not fall?

And we answered:

Rather, the wolves fall only upon the males,

because

the males are

fat [

fat]!

And we objected again:

And

why,

are there no fat ones among the females?

And furthermore,

we objected: Why,

do they know

how to distinguish

between these

males

and these

females?

And we answered:

Rather, specifically upon the males do they fall,

because

the males

raise their snouts and walk like a dove [

walking while looking here and there]. Therefore, the wolves become jealous of them, thinking that they wish to fight them, and they fall upon them.

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said:

What is the meaning of the Mishna’s “levuvin”?

A hide that they tie beneath their male organs, so that they will not mount the females .

And from where

did he learn that this is the intention of the Mishna?

From what it teaches at the end: And the sheep go out sheḥuzot.

And we raised the question:

What is the meaning of “sheḥuzot”?

And we explain:

They hold their tails upward

and tie them toward the back,

so that

their nakedness will not be covered, and

males will mount them.

And therefore he explained that the intention of the Mishna, “Males go out levuvin,” is with a hide that they tie beneath their male organs. For this is the same matter that is discussed at the end of the Mishna:

The first clause: So that they will not mount the females.

And

the final clause,

so that males will mount them.

And we raised the question:

What indicates that this “sheḥuzot”

is an expression of revealing,

as we explained? And how is this explanation hinted at in the word “sheḥuzot”?