Shabbat 63b (סג:) — the Talmud in English

As it is stated: “For

his fellow he withholds kindness.” For in Greek, they call a dog “his fellow he withholds kindness.”

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

Maharsha explains that one who raises a dog generally intends it for guarding his house, and he shows by this that he is not afraid of Heaven because he does not rely on the protection of the mezuzah in which the Name "Shaddai" is written. And he further noted that the Gemara in Bava Kamma [15b] forbids raising an evil dog because "and you shall not put blood in your house"; and here did they forbid it only because it prevents kindness to the poor? Rather, there they speak of a dog that is truly evil and harmful, and here they forbade even a dog that is not harmful but that appears like an evil dog and the poor refrain from entering for fear alone; therefore the Gemara here brought below an incident of damage that occurred from fear of the dog alone. seems as an evil dog and the poor refrain from entering for fear alone, and therefore the Gemara below brought an incident of damage that occurred from the fear of the dog alone.

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

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

A dog barked at her,

and because of her great fear,

her fetus was dislodged

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:

“Take

your kindness and throw it among the thorns.”

Your kindness is useless and is cast among the thorns, because

the fetus has already moved

from its place,

the fetus

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 cheer you in the days of your youth, and walk in the ways of your heart and in the sight of your eyes?

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

“Up to this point, “

“Rejoice, young man, in your youth” —

these are the words of the evil inclination.

“From this point onward” —

the conclusion of the verse, which states: “But know that for all these things” —

these are the words of the good inclination.

Reish Lakish said: “Up to this point” —

refers to words of Torah,

and the interpretation of the verse is: “

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

“And walk in the ways of your heart and in the sight of your eyes” — so that you learn and understand according to your own perception.

“From this point onward” —

as the verse states: “But know that for all these things” —

refers to good deeds!

For a person will ultimately be held accountable if he does not fulfill what he has learned.

We learned in the Mishna:

A birit is pure.

Rav Yehuda said: A birit

is an anklet

on the arm.

Rav Yosef raised an objection

to Rav Yehuda from what we learned in our Mishna:

“A birit is pure

and

one may go out with it on Shabbat, whereas an anklet is impure,”

as it is written concerning the incident involving Midian: “Anklets and bracelets,” and it is written afterward: “You shall purify yourselves and your captives” .

This proves that a birit is not an anklet!

And we answer:

This is what

Rav Yehuda

said: A birit

serves in place of an anklet

to hold up the lower portions of her stockings so that they do not fall and expose her legs. It is pure because it is not a vessel, it is not made for adornment, and it is not an implement used by a person, but rather an implement used for another implement.

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

Ravin was sitting and saying: The birit

mentioned in the Mishna is worn

on one

of her legs בלבד.

Chains —

the chains mentioned in the Mishna, which are impure, are worn

on two

legs, on both her feet.

Rav Huna said to him: Both this and that are worn on two

of her feet,

and a chain is placed between them, making them chains.

And we raise an objection:

“And

does the

chain in them make them a vessel,

as the Mishna states that chains are impure? 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

in accordance with Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani,

as Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani said in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan: From where is it derived that a device that produces sound, made of metal, is impure? As it is stated: “Anything that can come into fire,”

and we expound:

even speech is included

— even a vessel that produces sound contracts impurity, despite the fact that its entire function is merely to produce sound. For the same reason, chains are impure.

And we reject this:

Granted, there, one needs it for its sound, and it performs an action.

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

here,

with regard to chains,

what action do they perform?

After all, they have no functional use that would give them the status of a vessel.

And we answer:

Here,

with regard to chains,

they likewise perform an action,

and they are therefore considered implements of labor.

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

and consequently

their maidens would miscarry. They made chains for them and placed a chain

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

maidens would not miscarry.

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

Rabbi Yirmeya awoke,

as he had previously been dozing,

and said to them: Well done,

you have spoken well;

and Rabbi Yoḥanan likewise said

as you have said.

When Rav Dimi came

to Babylonia from Eretz Yisrael,

he said

in the name of

Rabbi Yoḥanan: From where is it derived 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 was a small item.

Abaye said to him: And

does a

tzitz consist of woven fabric?

But it was taught in a beraita: The tzitz —

was like a gold plate, and its width

was two fingerbreadths,

and it extended from ear to ear. And written

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

Rashi explains that on the upper line the Name of God was inscribed and on the line beneath — "Holy to L." And Tosafot raised the difficulty that then it would be raised the difficulty that then it would be impossible to read the inscription as its meaning "Holy to Him"? Ritva wrote that in the Jerusalem Talmud it is understood as Rashi, and indeed "they were not written to be read." Rabbenu Tam explains that they wrote "Holy to L" at the beginning of the lower line [on the right] and the Name of God at the end of the upper line [on the left], and then the Name is above and nevertheless it is possible to read and understand the inscription. Rambam rules that they wrote To the Lord Rambam [Hilchot Klei HaMikdash 9:1] rules that they wrote "To the Lord" above and "Holy" below, and according to him it is more intelligible that one can understand the writing also in that way — "To the Lord, holy." See 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 a single line.

When Rav Dimi went up

as he traveled

to Nehardea,

he retracted his earlier statement that the tzitz consisted of woven fabric.

He sent word to them,

to the Sages:

“The things that I said to you

were an error on my part.

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

whose measure is

any amount is impure?

They derived it

from the tzitz.

And from where is it derived that a woven fabric

whose measure is

any amount

is impure? They derived it

from

as it is written:

“Or a garment,”

and every “or” stated in Scripture serves as an amplification.

The Sages taught: A woven fabric

whose measure is

any amount —

is impure. And an ornament of any size —

is impure.

A woven fabric and an ornament,

a woven fabric and an ornament

a thing half of which is woven fabric and half ornament, whose measure is

any amount —

is impure.

He added

an additional law:

a sack

of any size

added to a garment is impure because of woven fabric,

even though it is not woven fabric.

Rava said

to explain the words of the beraita:

A woven fabric of any size —

is impure;

we derive this

from

the verse

“or a garment.”

An ornament of any size —

is impure;

we derive this

from the tzitz.

A woven fabric and an ornament

joined together, whose measure is

any amount —

is impure;

we derive this

from

the verse

“every vessel made for labor,”

and “every” comes to include this case.

One of the Sages said to Rava: That

verse in which it states, “every vessel made for labor,”

is written concerning Midian,

with regard to impurity imparted by a corpse. How can it be used to derive a law concerning impurity imparted by creeping animals, which is less severe than impurity imparted by a corpse?