Shabbat 54a — the Talmud in English

And we explain:

as it is written: “And behold, a woman came toward him, ![](pamud.bmp "

exact page location")

a harlot and guarded in heart”

and “a harlot” is an abbreviation of “with bound thighs.”

We learned in the Mishna:

the ewes go out bound.

And we inquire about it:

what is meant by “bound”?

And we explain:

that they bind [they tie]

the

tail of them below, so that the males should not mount them.

And they are called “bound,” because through this they do not produce offspring.

And we inquire about it:

from where is it understood that this “bound”

is an expression indicating that it does not produce fruit?

And we explain:

as it is written, “Then the king gave Hiram twenty cities in the land of Galilee. And Hiram went out from Tyre to see the cities that Solomon had given him, and they were not pleasing in his eyes. And he said:

What are these cities that you have given me, my brother? And he called them

the land of Kabul, to this day.”

And we inquire about it: what is meant by “the land of Kabul”?

And

Rav Huna said: A land in which there were people who were bound

[wrapped and tied]

with silver and gold.

And Rava said to him: If so,

how is the verse to be understood,

this is what is written: “and they were not pleasing in his eyes”!?

And is it

because they were bound with silver and gold that they were not pleasing in his eyes?

He said to him: Yes. Since they were wealthy

[rich]

and pampered, they did not perform work

of the king.

And from here we learn that the meaning of “bound” is that it does not produce fruit.

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: It was a land of salt earth

[salty and cracked].

And why did he call it “Kabul”? — Because a foot sinks in it until

the Kabul

[so that the foot sinks in it until the lower joint].

And

therefore

people say, “A land is bound,”

over a ground

that does not produce fruit.

For it was a land of salt earth, as stated. And therefore ewes that do not give birth are called “bound.”

We learned in the Mishna: The ewes go out

covered.

And we inquire about it:

what is meant by “covered”?

And we explain:

that they cover

[wrap around it]

it,

the newborn, on the day of its birth, so that its wool should not become soiled. In order

to

make a garment from this wool,

of

milat. And “kevinah” is a clasp. And therefore they called this “covering,” because they make clasps in order to fasten the garment around the ewes.

As we learned: “se’et,”

[one of the appearances of nega’im],

like white wool.

And we inquire about it:

what is meant by “white wool”?

Rav Bibi bar Abaye said: Like clean wool of one day old, which they cover for milat.

We learned in the Mishna:

and the goats go out tied.

It was stated: Rav said: The halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Judah,

that specifically those tied for drying may go out, but those tied for milking may not go out.

And Shmuel said: The halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Yosei,

who prohibits going out with all those mentioned in the Mishna, except for the covered ewes.

And some teach this statement independently,

as a statement in its own right, and not with reference to the Mishna.

как самостоятельное высказывание, а не как толкование Мишны.

And this is how it is taught:

Rav said:

Goats that are tied

for drying may

go out on Shabbat. But

not for milking.

And Shmuel said: Both this and that

[both for drying and for milking]

are prohibited.

And some teach it with regard to this:

this statement was said as follows:

Goats go out tied for drying, but not for milking.

In the name of Rabbi Judah ben Beteira they said: This is the halakha,

that for drying it is permitted and for milking it is prohibited, and this is in accordance with Rabbi Judah.

But who can distinguish

[cast lots] and distinguish between them,

which

goat is tied for

drying and which

is tied

for

the purpose of

milking?!

And if we permit those tied for drying, one who sees it will say that it is for milking, and they will come to permit everything.

And since they do not recognize

between them,

both this and that are prohibited.

Shmuel said—and some say, Rav Judah said in the name of Shmuel: The halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Judah ben Beteira,

that both this and that are prohibited.

When Ravin came, he said in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan: The halakha is in accordance with the first tanna

of the Mishna, who permits both for drying and for milking.

Mishna:

And with what

does

the animal not go out?

The camel may not go out with a saddlecloth

[a pack saddle], because we are concerned lest it fall and he carry it in the public domain.

And likewise,

not

may the camel go out when it is

bound

[with its hands tied to its legs],

nor

when it is

hobbled

[with its hand bent and tied to its forearm, and it walks on three legs. They do this so that it should not flee].

And likewise all other animals

do not go out bound or hobbled.

And he may not tie camels to one another and pull

all of them by pulling one of them. And the Gemara explains this.

But he places

the

ropes

of all the camels

into his hand and pulls. Provided that he does not wind

all the ropes together. And this will be explained in the Gemara.

Gemara:

The tanna taught: The camel may not go out with a saddlecloth tied to its tail,

lest it fall and he carry it.

But it may go out with a saddlecloth tied to its tail and to its hump

[its hump], since it is tied to both of them, it will not fall.

Rabba bar Rav Huna said: The camel may go out with a saddlecloth tied to it by its afterbirth,

because there it will not detach from the knot, since detaching it would cause it pain.

We learned in the Mishna:

not bound and not hobbled.

Rav Judah said:

Not “bound”—that is

the binding of a hand and a leg

to one another,

like

the binding of

Isaac son of Abraham.

And not

“hobbled,”

that is,

that he should not bend his hand

of the camel

over his forearm and tie

them to one another, so that the camel walks on three legs and does not flee.

He raised an objection: “Bound,”

that is, the tying of

two

the

hands

to one another, or

two

the

legs

to one another. And

“hobbled,”

that is

that he should not bend his hand over his forearm and tie.

It follows that “bound” is not like Isaac son of Abraham, as Rav Judah said.

And we explain: Rav Judah

is the one who said [his statement] in accordance with this tanna.

As it was taught: “Bound”—

the binding of a hand and a leg, or of two hands and two legs. “Hobbled”—

that he should not bend his hand

over his forearm and tie it.

And we ask again:

but it is still not similar

the method of the tanna entirely to the method of Rav Judah.

For granted, the first clause,

which said: “Bound” means the binding of a hand and a leg,

and the final clause,

which said: “Hobbled”—that he should not bend his forearm over his hand,

is understandable.

But

the middle clause,

which said that “hobbled” means two hands and two legs,

is difficult

for Rav Judah.

And we conclude:

Rather,

Rav Judah

is the one who said [his statement] in accordance with this tanna.

As it was taught:

“Bound”—

the binding of a hand and a leg, like Isaac son of Abraham. “Hobbled”—

that he should not bend his hand over his forearm and tie it.

We learned in the Mishna:

and he may not tie camels

to one another and pull.

And we inquire about it:

what is the reason?

Rav Ashi said: Because it appears like one who is going

with his camels

to the market

[to sell them in the market. And the market is called “ḥinga,” because circular dances of people surround it].

We learned in the Mishna:

but he places

ropes into his hand and pulls, provided that he does not wind them.

Rav Ashi said:

What we learned, “provided that he does not wind,”

was taught

not with regard to Shabbat,

but with regard to kilayim.

And we inquire about it:

which kilayim?

With regard to which type of kilayim did Rav Ashi speak?

If you say human kilayim,

that when he winds the ropes around his hand, he is found tied together with the camels. And at times they pull something, and he is found leading together with them, and thereby transgresses, “You shall not plow with an ox and a donkey together.” For a person and an animal are also two species—

and

this cannot be explained in this manner.

For

we learned: A person is permitted with all of them to plow and to pull.

The Torah prohibited kilayim only with two species of animals, and not with an animal and a person.

Rather,

it is speaking with regard to

the kilayim of ropes.

For if among them there are wool ropes and linen ropes, and they constitute kilayim, since his hand becomes warmed by them, it is prohibited because of “a garment of kilayim shall not come upon you.”

And although he does not intend to benefit from the warmth, the tanna holds in accordance with Rabbi Judah, who says that an unintended act is prohibited.

And we reject this:

and

this cannot be explained in this manner.

For

was it not taught: One who stitches

wool to linen

with one stitch

of a needle

does not create a connection

for kilayim, because the Torah prohibited only a fine, lasting connection, as it is written, “wool and linen together.” With fewer than two needle stitches, the connection does not endure.

And likewise, if he tied wool and linen with one knot, it does not endure, and “together” cannot be applied to it. If so, why is it prohibited for him to wind wool and linen ropes around his hand?

And we explain:

Actually,

the Mishna is speaking with regard to

the kilayim of ropes.

And this is what it says: Provided that he does not wind and tie

the wool and linen ropes around his hand, since winding together with tying is considered like two stitches.

шерстяные и льняные верёвки вокруг своей руки, поскольку обматывание вместе со связыванием считается двумя стежками.

Shmuel said:

what we learned: “But he inserts ropes into his hand and pulls,” it is permitted to do so,

provided that a handbreadth of rope does not protrude from beneath his hand.

For if a handbreadth in length remains from the end of the rope distant from the camel, from the person’s hand and outward, it is forbidden. For this appears as though he is carrying the rope in his hand and taking it out into the public domain. And it is not recognizable that he is reining the camel.

And we raise an objection:

But behold, the tanna of the academy of Shmuel:

provided that the rope does not protrude from beneath his hand

two handbreadths!?

Abaye said: Now that Shmuel says one handbreadth,

and the tanna of the academy of Shmuel says two handbreadths,

one may say that

Shmuel

came to inform us of the practical halakha.

And in truth, according to the law, up to two handbreadths is permitted. Rather, to one who comes to consult us regarding practical halakha, we say to him: up to one handbreadth, so as not to be lenient with prohibitions.