Shabbat 58a — the Talmud in English

They said in the name of Rabbi Shimon: even ![](pamud.bmp "

Exact page location")

it does not have the status of bridal crowns

for which they decreed that one may not go out with them since the time of the Destruction, because they decreed specifically concerning crowns of gold, but not concerning this one.

And Shmuel said,

he disagreed with Rabbi Abbahu , and held that the kavul that the Mishna prohibited

we learned [as referring to] the slave’s seal.

And we raise an objection:

Did Shmuel indeed say so?

But Shmuel said:

the slave goes out

with the seal on his neck,

which is the slave’s seal,

and it was made of clay,

but not with the seal on his garment!?

And we answer:

It is not difficult.

This

where Shmuel permitted him to go out with it is speaking of a seal

that his master made for him.

And because of fear of the master, he will not remove it from his neck and carry it in his hand.

This

the seal that the Mishna prohibits him from going out with is speaking of a seal

that he made for himself,

and the Sages were concerned that he might remove it and carry it in the public domain ,

because the master is not particular about it. And we raise an objection:

In what did you establish this statement of Shmuel,

who permitted going out with it, as referring to a seal on his neck

that his master made for him,

and they were not concerned that he would remove it because he fears his master?

If so,

with a seal on his garment—

why may he not

go out,

the slave?

And we answer: the Sages were concerned

perhaps it will be severed

the seal and break,

and he will be afraid,

the slave will fear his master, lest he say that he broke the seal in order to show in the marketplace that he is a free man,

and he will fold it,

the slave, his garment,

and place

there

it

on the garment

on his shoulder,

in order to conceal the absence of the seal . And one who goes out on Shabbat with a garment that is not upon him in the manner of clothing, but in the manner of carrying, is liable,

as in the statement of Rav Yitzchak bar Yosef.

For Rav Yitzchak bar Yosef said in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan: one who goes out with a folded garment placed on his shoulders

on Shabbat—

is liable for a sin-offering.

This decree—that perhaps the seal will break and he will come to fold his garment—applies only to one who has fear of the ruler upon him,

as in that which Shmuel said to Rav Ḥinnana bar Sheila: all the scholars of the house of the exilarch

who made a seal for their garments as slaves made them, in order to show that they were subordinate to the exilarch —

should not go out with sealed garments

they should not go out into the public domain with garments bearing such a seal on Shabbat, lest the seal break,

except for you,

outside of you, since

the house of the exilarch is not particular about you

if you go without a seal.

The essential matter: Shmuel said: the slave goes out with the seal on his neck, but not with the seal on his garment.

It was also taught so: the slave goes out with the seal on his neck, but not with the seal on his garment.

And we juxtapose it with another source,

a contradiction between the beraitot:

For, on the other hand, we learned in a beraita:

the slave may not go out with the seal on his neck, nor with the seal on his garment; both this and that do not contract impurity,

since they are not made for adornment, they do not have the status of an ornament, and obviously they are not a vessel.

Nor

may he go out

with a bell—

a bell

on his neck, but he does go out with a bell on his garment,

and

both this and that contract impurity,

because they are ornaments, and an ornament is considered like a vessel with regard to contracting impurity.

And an animal may go out neither with the seal on its neck, nor with the seal on its garment, nor with the bell on its garment, nor

with the bell on its neck,

because the matter appears as though they are leading it to the marketplace to be sold and hanging a bell on it to adorn it .

Both this and that the bell on its garment and the one on its neck— do not contract impurity, since an animal has no ornament.

And we raise an objection against Shmuel’s words from the beginning of the beraita, which prohibits a slave from going out both with the seal on his neck and with the seal on his garment.

Let us say,

to resolve the contradiction between the beraitot and Shmuel’s words:

This,

the first beraita and Shmuel’s words permitting a slave to go out with the seal on his neck, are speaking of a seal

that his master made for him,

which is permitted to go out with, since they were not concerned that he might remove it, as he fears his master.

This,

the second beraita, which prohibits it, is speaking of a seal

that he made for himself,

and they were concerned that he might come to remove it.

And we reject this:

No ,

it is not necessary to explain the beraita as referring to a seal that the slave made for himself; rather,

both this

and this,

both the words of the beraita and the words of Shmuel, are speaking of a seal

that his master made for him.

And here,

in the latter beraita, the matter is speaking

of a

seal

of metal,

for if the seal breaks, the slave will bring the fragments to his master’s house, and he will come to perform the labor of carrying,

and here,

in the words of the first beraita and in Shmuel’s words, who permitted going out with it, it is speaking

of a

seal

of clay,

for although the slave will not break it with his hands because of fear of his master, nevertheless, when the seal breaks on its own, the master is not particular about it, and the slave does not bring the fragments to his master’s house .

And as in the statement of Rav Naḥman in the name of Rabbah bar Avuha, who said: with an object about which his master is particular if it is lost, they may not go out with it; with an object about which he is not particular, they may go out with it.

kleyme

iz gliny,

for although the slave will not break it with his hands because of his fear of his master, nevertheless, when the seal breaks on its own, the master does not care about it, and the slave will not bring the fragments to his master’s house.

Here too, it is reasonable

that the beraita prohibiting it is speaking of a metal seal.

Since it teaches: both this and that,

the seal on his neck and the one on his garment,

do not contract impurity.

And we infer:

if you say it is understandable

that the matter spoken of in the beraita is a seal

of metal,

it is understood that specifically

these

metal seals, since they are neither a vessel nor an ornament,

are what do not contract impurity.

But their vessels,

of metal,

do contract impurity.

But if you say

that the beraita

is teaching concerning a

seal

of clay,

then it is difficult that the beraita adds that these seals do not contract impurity:

For is it only

these

seals, which are not an ornament,

that do not contract impurity?

But their vessels,

of clay, which is not fired in a kiln, but are earthen vessels,

do they contract impurity?

But

this is not so.

For

it was taught:

stone vessels, dung vessels, and earthen vessels—

do not contract impurity, neither by words of Torah nor by words of the Scribes.

Rather, conclude from this

that the beraita is speaking of a seal

of metal.

And we conclude:

conclude from this.

The master said,

we learned in the beraita:

nor

did the slave go out

with a bell

on his neck,

but he does go out with the bell on his garment.

And we considered it:

the bell on his neck—

why may he not

go out with it?

Perhaps it will break, and he will come to bring it

in his hand. If so,

with the bell on his garment too, let us be concerned: perhaps it will break, and he will come to bring it.

And we answer:

With what are we dealing here? With [a bell] fastened to it by weaving,

which attached the bell by weaving it into the garment, and we are not concerned that the bell will be severed .

And as in the statement of Rav Huna son of Rav Yehoshua, for Rav Huna son of Rabbi Yehoshua said: anything woven into a garment the Sages did not decree

I otvechaem:

o kakom sluchae zdes idet rech? O tom, chto ego zakrepil master, vplev ego

v odezhdu; poetomu ne opasalis, chto kolokolchik otorvetsya .

that it may not be carried out,

since they were not concerned that it might be severed .

The master said: an animal may go out neither with the seal on its neck, nor with the seal on its garment, nor with the bell on its neck, nor with the bell on its garment; both this and that do not contract impurity. And we are astonished: a bell belonging to an animal does not contract impurity? And we juxtapose it with another source:

mudretsy ne zapretili

vyvodit ee , tak kak ne opasalis, chto ona otorvetsya.

for we learned in a beraita:

an animal’s bell—

impure,

that is, it contracts impurity, because the bell has the status of a vessel with regard to contracting impurity, as will be explained.

kolokolchik zhivotnogo ne vosprinimaet ritualnuyu nepolnost?

I privodyat protivorechashchii istochnik:

ved v barayte my uchili:

kolokolchik zhivotnogo —

nechist,

to est vosprinimaet ritualnuyu nepolnost, tak kak kolokolchik imeet status sosuda, sposoben vosprinimat ritualnuyu nepolnost, kak budet obyasneno.