Shabbat 58a (נח.) — the Talmud in English

They said in the name of Rabbi Shimon: Even

it does not have the status of a crown worn by brides,

for which the Sages decreed that one may not go out with them from the time of the Destruction, since 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 prohibited by the Mishna

is the slave’s collar.

And we raise an objection:

And we raise an objection:

And did Shmuel actually say this?

But Shmuel said:

a slave may go out

with a seal around his neck,

which is the slave’s collar and was made of clay,

but not with a seal on his garment!?

And we answer:

It is not difficult.

This

that Shmuel permitted him to go out with it refers to a seal

that his master made for him.

Made for him by his master.

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

This

seal, which the Mishna prohibits him from taking out, refers to 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 his master does not care about it.

And we raise an objection:

In what case did you establish Shmuel’s statement,

that he permitted him to go out, as referring to a seal around his neck

that his master made for him,

and that there was no concern that he would remove it because he fears his master?

If so,

with a seal on his garment—

why may he not

go out with it?

And we answer: The Sages were concerned

lest it become detached

and the seal break,

and he become frightened,

because the slave would fear that his master would say that he broke the seal in order to appear in the marketplace as a free man,

and he would fold it

—the slave would fold his garment—

and place

it

on

his garment

on his shoulders,

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

as in the statement of Rav Yitzhak bar Yosef.

For Rav Yitzhak bar Yosef said that Rabbi Yohanan said: One who goes out with a folded cloak placed on his shoulders

on Shabbat—

is liable to bring a sin-offering.

This decree—that perhaps the seal will break and he will come to fold his garment—applies only to one who is subject to fear of the authority.

And this is like that which Shmuel said to Rav Ḥinnana bar Sheila: All the Sages of the house of the Exilarch

who would affix to their cloaks a seal like those made for slaves, to demonstrate that they were subordinate to the Exilarch—

should not go out with sealed cloaks,

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

apart from you,

except for you, since

the house of the Exilarch does not care about you

if you go without a seal.

The essential matter: Shmuel said: A slave may go out with a seal around his neck, but not with a seal on his garment.

It was taught likewise in a beraita: A slave may go out with a seal around his neck, but not with a seal on his garment.

And we juxtapose it—

a contradiction between the beraitot:

For, by contrast, we learned in a beraita:

A slave may not go out with a seal around his neck, nor with a seal on his garment; neither of these is susceptible to ritual 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

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

and

both of these are susceptible to ritual impurity,

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

And an animal may go out neither with a seal around its neck, nor with a seal on its covering, nor with a bell on its covering, nor

with a bell around its neck,

because it appears as though one is leading it to the marketplace to sell it and has hung a bell on it to adorn it.

Both of these

the bell on its covering and the bell around its neck—

are not susceptible to ritual impurity,

because an animal’s bell is not an ornament.

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

Let us say

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

This,

the first beraita, and Shmuel’s statement permitting a slave to go out with a seal around his neck, refer to a seal

that his master made for him,

with which he may go out because there was no concern that he would remove it, since he fears his master.

This,

the second beraita, which prohibits it, refers to a seal

that he made for himself,

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

And we reject this:

No;

the beraita need not be interpreted as referring to a seal that the slave made for himself. Rather,

both

this

—both the beraita and Shmuel’s statement—refer to a seal

that his master made for him.

seal

Here,

in the latter beraita, the case is

a

seal

of metal,

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

Here,

in the first beraita and in Shmuel’s statement, which permits going out with it, the case is

a

seal

of clay,

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.

And this is in accordance with Rav Naḥman, who said in the name of Rabbah bar Avuh,

who said:

An item about which his master is particular

if it is lost,

one may not go out with it; an item about which he is not particular, one may go out with it.

Here too, it is reasonably inferred

that the beraita prohibiting it speaks of a metal seal.

From the fact that it teaches: Both of these,

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

are not susceptible to ritual impurity.

And we deduce:

Granted, if you say

that the beraita speaks of a seal

of metal,

it is understandable that specifically

these

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

are not susceptible to ritual impurity.

But their vessels

of metal

are susceptible to ritual impurity.

But if you say

that the beraita

speaks of

a seal

of clay,

then the addition in the beraita that these seals are not susceptible to ritual impurity is difficult:

Is it only

these

seals, which are not ornaments, that

are not susceptible to ritual impurity?

But their vessels,

of clay, which is not fired in a kiln but consists of earthenware,

are susceptible to ritual impurity?

But

this is not so.

For

it was taught in a beraita: Stone vessels, dung vessels, and earthenware vessels—

are not susceptible to ritual impurity, neither by Torah law nor by rabbinic decree.

Rather, conclude from this

that the beraita speaks of a seal

of metal.

And we conclude:

Conclude from this.

The master said,

we learned in the beraita:

Nor

may the slave go out

with a bell

around his neck,

but he may go out with a bell on his garment.

And we inquire about this:

A bell around his neck—

why may he not

go out with it?

Perhaps it will become detached, and he will come to carry it

in his hand. If so,

with a bell on his garment as well, let us be concerned that perhaps it will become detached, and he will come to carry it.

And we answer:

What are we dealing with here? With one woven into it,

where the bell was attached by weaving it into the garment, and we are not concerned that the bell will become detached.

And this is in accordance with Rav Huna son of Rav Yehoshua, who said that Rav

Huna son of Rabbi Yehoshua said: Anything woven

into a garment—

the Sages did not decree

that one may not take it out, because they were not concerned that it might become detached.

The master said: An animal may go out neither with a seal around its neck, nor with a seal on its covering, nor with a bell around its neck, nor with a bell on its covering; both of these are not susceptible to ritual impurity.

And we are astonished:

A

bell

belonging to an animal is not susceptible to ritual impurity?

And we juxtapose:

For we learned in a beraita:

An animal’s bell—

is susceptible to ritual impurity,

that is, it can become ritually impure, because the bell has the status of a vessel with regard to susceptibility to ritual impurity, as will be explained.