Shabbat 53b (נג:) — the Talmud in English

And the Gemara proves this:

This is also precise, as it teaches!

analogous to an amulet,

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

And we conclude:

derive from this!

The Master said:

and he may not

go out

with an amulet, even though it is proven effective.

And we challenge this:

But we learned in the Mishna

below:

and a person may not

go out

with an amulet that is not proven effective [that it has not been demonstrated three times that it was effective in providing healing].

This implies that

This implies that

an

effective amulet is entirely permitted,

and one may go out with it. And what difference is there between an animal and a person? Just as an amulet is considered protection for a person’s body, rather than a burden, so too it should be permitted for an animal.

And we answer:

here too,

the discussion is referring to an amulet

that is not proven effective.

And we question this:

But it says, “even though it is proven effective”,

does it not!?

And we answer that the case is one involving an amulet that is

proven effective for a person.

But

it is not proven effective for an animal.

Therefore, the animal may not go out with it.

We consider this matter:

But is there

an amulet

that is proven effective for a person but is not proven effective for an animal?

And we answer:

Yes. A person, who has mazzal [an angel advocating on his behalf] , has the amulet

the amulet

assist him.

But

an animal, which does not have mazzal,

the amulet

does not assist it.

And we ask again:

If so,

that the discussion concerns an amulet not proven effective for an animal,

what is the meaning of “this greater stringency with an animal than with a person”

as the beraita stated? The same applies to 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”

refers to the amulet?

That is not so. Rather,

it refers to the sandal!

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

Come and hear: One may apply oil with a knife

to a person

and scrape away

the scabs of his wound,

but one may neither apply oil nor scrape away scabs for an animal.

Is it not,

that the case is one in which

there is

still a

wound, and

one scrapes the scabs from a person

because of pain?

But it is prohibited to scrape the scabs from an animal even because of pain.

This is difficult both according to Rav and according to Shmuel, who permit any exertion undertaken because of pain.

And we answer:

No,

the case is not one in which a wound still exists. Rather, it is after

the

wound

has healed.

And

the oil is not applied and the scabs are not scraped because of pain, but

for pleasure.

Therefore, it is prohibited for an animal .

Come and hear: An animal that was seized

by an illness of

blood ,

which causes it to become overheated and appear full of blood—

one may not place it in water in order that it cool off.

But

a person seized by this condition of blood may be placed in water so that he will cool off.

This proves that it is prohibited to exert oneself for an animal even in a case of pain. This is difficult for Rav and Shmuel.

Ulla said:

The reason for the prohibition in the case of an animal is

a decree

that it is

because of grinding medicinal substances.

For this reason, the Sages prohibited all medical treatment on Shabbat, lest one come to permit grinding medicinal substances for medical treatment on Shabbat and violate the prohibition of grinding, which is a prohibition from the Torah.

And we challenge this:

If so,

it should also be prohibited for

a person as well

to place him in water, because of this decree, since he is doing so for medical treatment.

And we answer:

A person

does not appear to be standing in water for medical treatment. Rather, he

appears to be cooling himself [cooling] in the water, and since it does not appear to be medical treatment, the Sages did not issue a decree concerning it.

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

And we challenge this again:

If so,

for

an animal as well

let us permit it because it

appears to be cooling itself,

and it is not being placed in the water for medical treatment .

And we answer:

No.

It is not customary to

cool an animal.

Therefore, everyone recognizes that he is doing it for medical treatment, and they might come to permit grinding medicinal substances for medical treatment.

And we challenge this:

Do we issue a decree for an animal

in a case involving financial loss?

But it was taught in a beraita: If

the animal was

standing outside the Shabbat boundary,

the owner

calls to it, and it comes.

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

And we do not issue a 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 teḥum. Since the animal would be lost if he did not bring it to him, the Sages did not issue a decree in such a case.

We have learned that the Sages did not issue a decree concerning an animal where there is financial loss. Why, then, did they issue a decree concerning an animal seized by blood because of grinding medicinal substances?

And Ravina said:

In truth, the Sages issued a decree even in a case of financial loss. Rather, the case concerns an animal entrusted to a shepherd. Its Shabbat boundary is the same as the shepherd’s boundary—that is, two thousand cubits in every direction from the place where the shepherd is standing. The one calling to it is the owner, whose Shabbat boundary differs from that of the animal [which is determined according to the shepherd’s boundary].

And this is a case in which the boundary

of its

Shabbat is encompassed within the boundary

of

his

Shabbat. Thus, even if he goes to the animal’s location, he still has not gone beyond his own boundary. Therefore, there is no concern that he will go beyond his boundary .

The reason he may not bring it directly is that the animal is standing outside its own boundary. Anyone who goes beyond his boundary, whether a person or an animal, has only four cubits, and may not walk farther than that. Therefore, if he brings it to himself directly, he violates the prohibition of meḥamer [that he may not directly cause his animal to perform a prohibited act on Shabbat], by taking it beyond its four-cubit limit .

However, it is permitted to call it so that it will come on its own, because he is not prohibited with regard to his animal’s boundary .

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said:

The decree concerning

grinding

medicinal substances itself in the case of an animal is a dispute among

the

tanna’im!

There is a tanna who did not issue a decree concerning other medical treatments for an animal, due to the concern that one might come to grind medicinal substances.

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

in large quantities and consequently became ill and needed to have a bowel movement,

one may not make it run in the courtyard so that it will be relieved [so that its intestines will relax and it will have a bowel movement], because this is medical treatment. The Sages issued a decree because of the concern that one might grind medicinal substances.

And Rabbi Oshaya permits.

And Rabbi Oshaya permits .

He holds that the Sages did not issue this decree in the case of an animal, because a person is not so distressed over treating his animal .

Rava expounded: The halakha follows Rabbi Oshaya,

that the Sages did not issue a decree concerning medical treatment for an animal due to the concern that one might grind medicinal substances.

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

And we raised an objection:

But wasn’t it taught in a beraita: Goats may go out with the pouch on their udders!?

Rav Yehuda said: It is not difficult.

Here,

the case where we learned “may go out” is one

where it is tightly fastened,

where the pouch is fastened securely.

And here,

the case where we learned “nor may goats go out with the pouch on their udders” is one

where it is not tightly fastened,

as, since it is not fastened securely, we are concerned that it may fall, and the owner may carry it in the public domain.

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

That is, have you lost all the tannaim, so that you cannot find tannaim who disagree about this? Why do you need to force the two beraitot into two different interpretations? Isn’t this a dispute among

the tannaim?

And each beraita follows a different tanna.

As we learned in the Mishna: The goats go out with their udders tied

with a pouch on their udders.

And

Rabbi Yosei prohibits all of them, except for shorn sheep.

Rabbi Yehuda says: Goats go out with their udders tied

in order

to dry

their milk. For this purpose, the pouch is fastened securely, and there is no concern that it will fall. Nor is it considered a burden, since it is for the animal’s own benefit: so that the milk will not diminish its strength.

But not

for the purpose of

milking

their milk into the pouch! For when she loads the milk into the pouch, this is a burden.

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

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

Here,

the beraita that we learned permits it when the udders are tied in order

to dry

the milk.

And here,

the case that we learned is prohibited is when the udders are tied 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 along 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. She left behind a son who was nursing, but he could not afford to pay a wet nurse. A miracle occurred for him, and breasts like a woman’s two breasts opened for him. And he nursed his son.

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

Abaye said to him: On the contrary, how inferior this man was, that the natural order of Creation was altered for him .

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

in order for his son to nurse,

the natural order of Creation was altered for him,

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

Rav Naḥman said: You can know

that this is so,

for

indeed

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 their finding wheat growing in their storehouses.

It follows that obtaining sustenance is more difficult than saving lives through a miracle.

The Sages taught: There was an incident involving a certain man who married a woman whose hand had been amputated. He did not realize

that she had an amputated hand

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 realize

Rabbi Hiyya said to him: This is not the woman’s distinction, because

that was her usual practice.

Every woman customarily covers 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 his wife

as having an amputated hand.

We learned in our Mishna:

Males go out levuvin.

And we raised a question about it:

What is the meaning of “levuvin”?

Rav Huna said: They are tied in pairs!

They are joined by a tie, two by two, so that they will not flee. This is the novelty of the Mishna: They may go out with this tie, since it is not a burden but rather serves the need of protecting their bodies.

And we raised a question about it:

From where is it understood that this expression “levuvin”

is an expression of drawing near

[joining]

?

And we answered:

From the verse, “You have captured my heart, my sister, bride.”

The Holy One, blessed be He, said to the Congregation of Israel: You have brought Me close to you because of the beauty of your deeds.

Ulla said:

The meaning of “levuvin” is that they go out with

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

Wolves customarily seize an animal by its heart. [And levuvin is an expression derived from lev, heart.]

And we object: If so, why did the Mishna mention specifically males? Do

wolves

specifically

fall upon males,

but

do they not fall upon females?

And we answered: Specifically males go out with the hide over their hearts,

because

the males

walk

[at the head of the flock]

at the front of the flock.

And we again object: Do

wolves

specifically

fall upon those at the head of the flock,

but

do they not fall upon those at the end of the flock?

And we answered:

Rather, the wolves fall only upon the males,

because

the males are

fat [

fat]!

And we again object:

But

are there

no fat ones among the females?

Furthermore,

we object: Do

wolves know

how to distinguish

between these

males

and these

females?

And we answered:

Rather, specifically males are attacked,

because

the males

hold their noses up and walk like a dove [

walking while looking this way and that]. Therefore, the wolves become provoked by them, thinking that they intend to fight them, and attack 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 meaning of the Mishna?

From what is taught at the end of the Mishna: And the ewes go out with their tails tied up.

And we raised a question about it:

What is the meaning of “shahuzot”?

And we explained:

They hold their tails up

and tie them toward the back,

so that

their genitalia will not be covered, and

the males will mount them.

Therefore, he explained that the meaning of the Mishna’s “males go out levuvin” is that they wear a hide tied beneath their male organs, for this is the same matter discussed at the end of the Mishna:

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

And

the latter clause, ,

so that the males will mount them.

And we raised a question about it:

From where is it understood that this expression “shahuzot”

is an expression of revealing,

as we explained? And how is this interpretation alluded to in the word “shahuzot”?