אֵינוֹ נוֹטֵל וּמַחֲזִיר. he may not remove the pot and then return it to its place.
רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: נְעוֹרֶת שֶׁל פִּשְׁתָּן דַּקָּה הֲרֵי הִיא כְּזֶבֶל. Rabbi Yehuda says: The chaff of fine flax is like manure. Therefore, one may not insulate food in it even on Shabbat eve.
מַנִּיחִין מֵיחַם עַל גַּבֵּי מֵיחַם וּקְדֵרָה עַל גַּבֵּי קְדֵרָה, אֲבָל לֹא קְדֵרָה עַל גַּבֵּי מֵיחַם, וּמֵיחַם עַל גַּבֵּי קְדֵרָה. וְטָח אֶת פִּיהָ בְּבָצֵק, וְלֹא בִּשְׁבִיל שֶׁיֵּחַמּוּ, אֶלָּא בִּשְׁבִיל שֶׁיִּהְיוּ מְשׁוּמָּרִים. One may place a copper urn upon a copper urn, and one may place an earthenware pot upon an earthenware pot because the lower utensil will not heat the upper one. However, one may not place an earthenware pot upon a copper urn, or a copper urn upon an earthenware pot, as in that case there is concern that the upper utensil will be heated by the lower one. And one may seal the mouth of a pot with dough. All of the above may not be undertaken in order to heat the water, but only so that its heat will be maintained and it will not cool down.
וּכְשֵׁם שֶׁאֵין טוֹמְנִין אֶת הַחַמִּין כָּךְ אֵין טוֹמְנִין אֶת הַצּוֹנֵן. רַבִּי הִתִּיר לְהַטְמִין אֶת הַצּוֹנֵן. And just as one may not insulate hot food to keep it warm, so too, one may not insulate cold food to keep it cold. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi permitted insulating cold food on Shabbat.
וְאֵין מְרַזְּקִין לֹא אֶת הַשֶּׁלֶג וְלֹא אֶת הַבָּרָד בְּשַׁבָּת בִּשְׁבִיל שֶׁיָּזוּבוּ מֵימָיו, אֲבָל נוֹתֵן הוּא לְתוֹךְ הַכּוֹס אוֹ לְתוֹךְ הַקְּעָרָה וְאֵינוֹ חוֹשֵׁשׁ. And one may neither crush snow nor hail on Shabbat so that its water will flow and he will be able to drink it. That act involves creation of a new entity, water from ice, on Shabbat, which is prohibited. However, he may place the snow or the hail into a cup or a dish and allow it to melt on its own, and he need not be concerned.
הדרן עלך במה טומנין
מַתְנִי׳ בַּמֶּה בְּהֵמָה יוֹצְאָה וּבַמָּה אֵינָהּ יוֹצְאָה? — יוֹצֵא הַגָּמָל בְּאַפְסָר, וְנָאֲקָה בַּחֲטָם, וְלוּבְדְּקִים בִּפְרוּמְבְּיָא, וְסוּס בְּשֵׁיר. Due to the mitzva to rest one’s animals on Shabbat, one’s animal may not go out into the public domain bearing a burden. However, an object designated to protect the animal or to prevent it from fleeing is not considered a burden; therefore, an animal bearing objects that serve that purpose may go out into the public domain.
MISHNA: The mishna asks: With what may an animal go out into the public domain on Shabbat and with what may it not go out? A camel may go out on Shabbat with an afsar, and a naka may go out with a ḥatam, and a luvdekim may go out with a perumbiya. All these terms will be defined in the Gemara. And a horse may go out with a chain around its neck.
וְכׇל בַּעֲלֵי הַשִּׁיר יוֹצְאִין בְּשֵׁיר וְנִמְשָׁכִין בְּשֵׁיר. And, in general, all animals that typically have a chain around their necks when they go out to the public domain may go out with a chain on Shabbat and may be pulled by the chain.
וּמַזִּין עֲלֵיהֶן, וְטוֹבְלָן בִּמְקוֹמָן. If these chains contracted ritual impurity, one may sprinkle waters of purification on them and immerse them in their place on the animal, and they need not first be removed.
גְּמָ׳ מַאי ״נָאקָה בַּחֲטָם״? אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר בַּר חָנָה: נָאקְתָּא חִיוָּרְתִּי בִּזְמָמָא דְפַרְזְלָא. ״וְלוּבְדְּקִים בִּפְרוּמְבְּיָא״ — אָמַר רַב הוּנָא: חֲמָרָא לוּבָא בְּפַגֵּי דְפַרְזְלָא. GEMARA: Several terms in the mishna were not clear to the Sages, and the Gemara asks: What is the meaning of naka with a ḥatam? Rabba bar bar Ḥana said: A white female camel (ge’onim) with an iron nose ring. And what is the meaning of luvdekim with a perumbiya? Rav Huna said: A Libyan donkey with an iron halter.
לֵוִי שַׁדַּר זוּזֵי לְבֵי חוֹזָאֵי לְמִיזְבַּן לֵיהּ חֲמָרָא לוּבָא. צָרוּ שַׁדַּרוּ לֵיהּ שְׂעָרֵי, לְמֵימַר דְּנִיגְרֵי דַחֲמָרָא שְׂעָרֵי. Having mentioned a Libyan donkey, the Gemara relates that Levi once sent money to Bei Ḥozai to procure for himself a Libyan donkey, which is reputed to be of superior quality. They bound his money, returned it, and sent him barley, to say that the strides of a donkey depend on the barley that it eats. If one provides his donkey with better feed, its performance will be as good as that of a Libyan donkey.
אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: מַחְלִיפִין לִפְנֵי רַבִּי, שֶׁל זוֹ בָּזוֹ מַהוּ? Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: The students switched the details in the mishna before Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and asked: What is the halakha with regard to this animal going out into the public domain with that which is permitted for that animal? For example, may a white female camel go out with a bit or a camel with an iron nose ring?
נָאקָה בְּאַפְסָר לָא תִּיבְּעֵי לָךְ, כֵּיוָן דְּלָא מִינַּטְרָא בֵּיהּ — מַשּׂאוֹי הוּא. כִּי תִּיבְּעֵי לָךְ גָּמָל בַּחֲטָם מַאי? כֵּיוָן דְּסַגִּי לֵיהּ בְּאַפְסָר — מַשּׂאוֹי הוּא, אוֹ דִילְמָא נְטִירוּתָא יַתִּירְתָּא לָא אָמְרִינַן מַשּׂאוֹי הוּא? The Gemara explains: The case of a white female camel going out with a bit should not be a dilemma for you; since it is not sufficiently secured by a bit, it is regarded as a burden with which the animal may not go out. The case where there should be a dilemma for you is that of a camel going out to the public domain with a nose ring. What is the halakha in that case? The Gemara explains the dilemma: Is the halakha that since a bit alone suffices to secure a camel, an iron nose ring is considered a burden? Or, is the halakha perhaps that with regard to a device that provides excessive security we do not say that it is a burden?
אָמַר לְפָנָיו רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל בְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי: כָּךְ אָמַר אַבָּא: אַרְבַּע בְּהֵמוֹת יוֹצְאוֹת בְּאַפְסָר, הַסּוּס וְהַפֶּרֶד וְהַגָּמָל וְהַחֲמוֹר. לְמַעוֹטֵי מַאי? לַָאו לְמַעוֹטֵי גָּמָל בַּחֲטָם! לָא, לְמַעוֹטֵי נָאקָה בְּאַפְסָר. Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosei, said before Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi that so said father, Rabbi Yosei: Four animals may go out with a bit: The horse, and the mule, and the camel, and the donkey. What does this list come to exclude? Is it not coming to exclude a camel going out with a nose ring? Apparently, the dilemma is resolved. The camel may go out only with a bit. The Gemara rejects this proof: No, the list comes to exclude a white female camel going out with a bit.
בְּמַתְנִיתָא תָּנָא: לוּבְדְּקִים וְגָמָל יוֹצְאִין בְּאַפְסָר. כְּתַנָּאֵי: אֵין חַיָּה יוֹצְאָה בְּסוּגַר, חֲנַנְיָה אוֹמֵר: יוֹצְאָה בְּסוּגַר וּבְכׇל דָּבָר הַמִּשְׁתַּמֵּר. It was taught in a baraita: A Libyan donkey and a camel may go out with a bit. The Gemara notes that the question whether or not an animal may go out into the public domain with excessive security is parallel to a dispute between the tanna’im, as it was taught in a baraita: A non-domesticated animal may not go out with a collar. Ḥananya says: It may go out with a collar and with anything that secures it.
בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן? אִילֵּימָא בְּחַיָּה גְּדוֹלָה — מִי סַגִּי לַהּ סוּגַר? וְאֶלָּא בְּחַיָּה קְטַנָּה — מִי לָא סַגִּי לַהּ סוּגַר? The Gemara clarifies the case: With what are we dealing here? If you say that we are dealing with a large non-domesticated animal, does a collar suffice for it? Since it does not sufficiently secure the animal, it is considered a burden, and it is prohibited for the animal to go out with it on Shabbat. Rather, it must be dealing with a small non-domesticated animal. In that case, doesn’t a collar suffice for it? Why then does the anonymous first tanna hold that the animal may not go out with it?
אֶלָּא לָאו חָתוּל אִיכָּא בֵּינַיְיהוּ: תַּנָּא קַמָּא סָבַר כֵּיוָן דְּסַגִּי לַהּ בְּמִיתְנָא בְּעָלְמָא מַשּׂאוֹי הוּא, וַחֲנַנְיָה סָבַר כׇּל נְטִירוּתָא יַתִּירְתָּא לָא אָמְרִינַן מַשּׂאוֹי הוּא. אָמַר רַב הוּנָא בַּר חִיָּיא אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: הֲלָכָה כַּחֲנַנְיָה. Rather, is it not that the practical difference between their opinions is with regard to a cat? The anonymous first tanna of the baraita holds that since a small rope suffices for the cat, a collar is considered a burden with which the cat may not go out into the public domain. And Ḥananya holds that with regard to a device that provides excessive security, we do not say that it is a burden. The tanna’im disagree whether or not a device that provides excessive security is considered a burden. The Gemara concludes: Rav Huna bar Ḥiyya said that Shmuel said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Ḥananya. A device that provides excessive security is not considered a burden.
לֵוִי בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב הוּנָא בַּר חִיָּיא וְרַבָּה בַּר רַב הוּנָא הֲווֹ קָאָזְלִי בְּאוֹרְחָא. קַדְמֵיהּ חֲמָרָא דְלֵוִי לַחֲמָרָא דְּרַבָּהּ בַּר רַב הוּנָא. חֲלַשׁ דַּעְתֵּיהּ דְּרַבָּה בַּר רַב הוּנָא, אֲמַר: אֵימָא לֵיהּ מִילְּתָא כִּי הֵיכִי The Gemara relates that Levi, son of Rav Huna bar Ḥiyya, and Rabba bar Rav Huna were once going together on a road. Levi’s donkey on its own initiative went ahead of the donkey of Rabba bar Rav Huna. Rabba bar Rav Huna was offended because he was the greater Torah scholar, and he thought that Levi went first to assert that he considered himself the greater scholar. Levi said to himself: I will say something to him, so that