Shabbat 63b — the Talmud in English

as it is stated: “from his fellow he withholds kindness.” ![](pamud.bmp "

exact page location")

For in the Greek language they call a dog “lams.”

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: He also removes from himself the fear of Heaven, as it is stated: “and he forsakes the fear of the Almighty.”

There was a certain woman who entered a certain house to bake —

an incident involving a woman who went up to bake in a certain house whose owner had lent his oven.

A dog barked at her,

and from the great fear

her fetus was displaced,

and she miscarried.

The master of the house said to her,

the owner of the house said to the woman:

“Do not be afraid, for its teeth have been removed and its claws have been removed” —

do not fear the dog, since its teeth were removed and it cannot bite, and its claws were removed and it cannot scratch.

She said to him,

the woman said to the owner of the house:

“Removed is

your kindness, and cast upon thorns” —

your kindness has been removed and is cast upon thorns, because

already displaced

has been uprooted

the fetus

from its place, and there is no remedy for it.

Rav Huna said: What is the meaning of that which is written: “Rejoice, young man, in your youth, and let your heart gladden you in the days of your youth, and walk in the ways of your heart and in the sight of your eyes.

And know that for all these things God will bring you into judgment!””

“Up to here, “

rejoice, young man, in your youth” —

the words of the evil inclination.

“From here onward” —

the end of the verse, which says: “and know that for all these things” —

the words of the good inclination.

Reish Lakish said: “Up to here” —

refers to words of Torah,

and the interpretation of the verse is: “

“Rejoice” — in your learning, so that you study with joy and a good heart. “

“And walk in the ways of your heart and in the sight of your eyes” — so that you study and understand according to what your eyes perceive.

“From here onward” —

as the verse says: “and know that for all these things” —

refers to good deeds!

For a person will in the future give an accounting if he does not fulfill what he has learned.

We learned in the Mishna:

A birit is pure.

Rav Yehuda said: A birit

is a bracelet

of the arm.

Rav Yosef raised an objection

to Rav Yehuda from what we learned in our Mishna:

A birit is pure

and

one goes out with it on Shabbat, whereas a bracelet is impure,

for concerning the incident of Midian the verse says: “bracelets and armlets,” and regarding this it is written: “you shall purify yourselves, and your captives” .

And it is proven that a birit is not a bracelet!?

And we answer:

This is what

Rav Yehuda

said: A birit —

stands in place of a bracelet

to hold up her stockings so that they do not fall and reveal her legs. And it is pure, since it is not a vessel, it is not made for adornment, and it is not an implement serving a person, but rather an implement serving an article.

Ravin and Rav Huna were sitting before Rav Yirmeya, and Rav Yirmeya was sitting and dozing.

And Ravin was sitting and saying: A birit

mentioned in the Mishna is placed

on one

of her legs only.

Fetters —

mentioned in the Mishna, which are impure, are placed

on two,

on both her legs.

Rav Huna said to him: Both these and those are on two

of her legs,

and they suspend a chain between them, and they become fetters.

And we challenge this:

And

does

the chain that is in it make them a vessel,

as the Mishna said that the fetters are impure? And why are they considered vessels? Is it because they contain a chain that they become a vessel?

And if you would say

that the reason they contract impurity is

according to Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani,

as Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani said in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan: From where is it established that a device that produces sound among metal vessels is impure? As it is stated: “Every object that comes into the fire”,

and we expound:

even speech is included —

even a vessel that produces sound contracts impurity, although its entire use is only for producing sound. And for the same reason the fetters are impure.

And we reject this:

Granted, there, they require it for its sound, and it performs an action.

Therefore the vessel contracts impurity, since it is an implement of action. But

here,

the fetters —

what action do they perform?

After all, they have no “action” use by which they should have the status of a vessel.

And we answer:

Here,

with the fetters,

it also performs an action,

and they are considered implements of action.

For Rabba bar bar Ḥana said in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan: There was one family in Jerusalem whose strides were broad,

and because of this

their virgins would fall. They made fetters for them and suspended a chain

between them, so that their strides would not be broad, and their

virgins would not fall.

Therefore this chain is an implement of action, since it serves a person, and for that reason it contracts impurity.

Rabbi Yirmeya awoke,

who had been dozing beforehand,

and said to them: Well done,

you have spoken well,

and Rabbi Yoḥanan said likewise,

as you said.

When Rav Dimi came

to Babylonia from the Land of Israel,

he said

in the name of

Rabbi Yoḥanan: From where is it established that a woven fabric

whose size is

any amount,

which has the status of a garment,

is impure?

We derive it

from the tzitz,

which is a small object.

Abaye said to him: And

is

the tzitz a woven fabric?

But it was taught in a beraita: The tzitz

was like a plate of gold. And its width

was two fingerbreadths.

And it extended from ear to ear. And written

upon it in two lines: the yod-heh above, and “holy” lamed below .

And Rabbi Eliezer son of Rabbi Yosei said: I saw it

in the city of Rome, and written

on it was:

“Holy to the Lord” in one line.

When Rav Dimi went up

when he went

to Nehardea,

he retracted his earlier statement that the tzitz was a woven fabric.

He sent to them,

to the Sages:

“The things that I said to you

are an error on my part.

Rather, this is what they said in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan: From where is it established that an ornament

whose measure is

any amount, which is impure?

They derived this

from the tzitz.

And from where is it established that a woven fabric

whose measure is

any amount,

which is impure? They derived it

from

as it is written:

“or a garment”,

and every “or” stated in the verse is an inclusion.

The Sages taught: A woven fabric

whose measure is

any amount —

is impure.

And an ornament of any amount —

is impure.

A woven fabric and an ornament,

something half of which is woven fabric and half of which is an ornament, whose measure is

any amount —

is impure.

An addition

added

to a sack,

of any amount,

to a garment, which is impure on account of woven fabric,

even though it is not woven fabric.

Rava said,

to explain the words of the beraita:

A woven fabric of any amount —

is impure;

we derive this

from

the verse

“or a garment.”

An ornament of any amount —

is impure;

we derive this

from the tzitz.

A woven fabric and an ornament,

which are joined together and whose measure is

any amount —

is impure;

we derive this

from

the verse

“every implement of action,”

and “every” comes to include.

A certain one of the Sages said to Rava: That

verse in which “every implement of action” is stated

is written concerning Midian,

with regard to impurity imparted by a corpse; so how can it be used to derive a law concerning the impurity of creeping creatures, which is less severe than impurity imparted by a corpse?