Shabbat 54aשבת נ״ד א
The William Davidson Talmudתלמוד מהדורת ויליאם דוידסון
Save "Shabbat 54a"
Toggle Reader Menu Display Settings
54aנ״ד א

שית זונה ונצורת לב:

with the attire of a harlot [shit zona] and wily of heart” (Proverbs 7:10). Sheḥuzot can be interpreted as an acronym of the words shit zona, attire of a harlot, with the letters tav and ḥet, which are similar in form, interchanged.

הרחלים יוצאות כבולות: מאי כבולות שמכבלין אליה שלהן למטה כדי שלא יעלו עליהן הזכרים מאי משמע דהאי כבול לישנא דלא עביד פירי הוא דכתיב מה הערים [האלה] אשר נתת לי אחי ויקרא (להן) ארץ כבול עד היום הזה

We learned in the mishna: Ewes may go out kevulot. The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of kevulot? It means that they bind their tails down with animal hide so that the males will not mount them. The Gemara explains: From where may it be inferred that this word kavul is a term meaning does not produce fruit? As it is written, when Solomon gave a portion of land to Hiram, he complained: “What cities are these which you have given me, my brother? And he called them the land of Kavul to this day” (I Kings 9:13).

מאי ארץ כבול אמר רב הונא שהיו בה בני אדם שמכובלין בכסף ובזהב אמר ליה רבא אי הכי היינו דכתיב (כי לא) ישרו בעיניו מפני שמכובלין בכסף ובזהב לא ישרו בעיניו אמר ליה אין כיון דעתירי ומפנקי לא עבדי עבידתא

What is the meaning of the land of Kavul? Rav Huna said: That the people living there were bound [mekhubalin] and surrounded by silver and gold. Rava said to him: If so, is that what is written: “And Hiram came out of Tyre to see the cities which Solomon had given him, and they pleased him not” (I Kings 9:12)? Because the people there were bound in silver and gold, the cities were not pleasing in his eyes? Rav Huna said to him: Yes, indeed, it was precisely the abundant wealth that displeased Hiram. Since the people were wealthy and delicate, they did not perform labor. Hiram was seeking people whom he could enlist in the service of the king.

רב נחמן בר יצחק אמר ארץ חומטון היתה ואמאי קרי לה כבול דמשתרגא בה כרעא עד כבלא ואמרי אינשי ארעא מכבלא דלא עבד פירי:

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: It was a sandy [ḥomton] expanse of land. And why was it called Kavul? It is because the leg sinks into it up to the ankle [kavla]. And people say in describing poor quality land: Land that is bound [mekhabela] shut, i.e., that does not produce fruit.

כבונות: מאי כבונות שמכבנין אותו למילת כדתנן שאת כצמר לבן מאי צמר לבן אמר רב ביבי בר אביי כצמר נקי בן יומו שמכבנין אותו למילת:

We learned in the mishna: Ewes may go out kevunot. The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of kevunot? It is that they covered [mekhabnin] the animal to produce fine wool. Sheep were wrapped in cloth from the day they were born so that their wool would remain perfectly clean and it could be used in fashioning especially fine wool garments. As we learned in a mishna: The color of a leprous sore [se’et] is like that of white wool. The Gemara asked: What is white wool? Rav Beivai bar Abaye said: Like the clean wool of a newborn lamb, which they cover from birth to produce fine wool.

והעזים יוצאות צרורות: איתמר רב אמר הלכה כרבי יהודה ושמואל אמר הלכה כרבי יוסי

Our mishna continues: And the she-goats may go out with their udders bound. Rabbi Yosei prohibits doing so. Rabbi Yehuda distinguishes between a case where the udders were bound to dry the milk supply and a case where they were bound to conserve the milk. It was stated that the amora’im disagreed with regard to the ruling in this dispute: Rav said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, and Shmuel said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei.

ואיכא דמתני להא שמעתא באפי נפשיה רב אמר ליבש מותר ולא לחלב ושמואל אמר אחד זה ואחד זה אסור

And there are those who teach this halakha independent of the mishna. Rav said: If the udders were bound to dry the milk supply it is permitted, and not if they were bound to conserve the milk. And Shmuel said: Both this and that are prohibited.

ואיכא דמתני לה אהא עזים יוצאות צרורות ליבש אבל לא לחלב משום רבי יהודה בן בתירא אמרו כך הלכה אבל מי מפיס איזו ליבש ואיזו לחלב ומתוך שאין מכירים אחד זה ואחד זה אסור אמר שמואל ואמרי לה אמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל הלכה כרבי יהודה בן בתירא כי אתא רבין אמר רבי יוחנן הלכה כתנא קמא:

And there are those who taught this dispute with regard to this baraita: Goats may go out with their udders bound to dry the milk supply but not to conserve the milk. In the name of Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira they said: That is the halakha, based on the letter of the law, but who can cast lots to determine by sight alone which udder is bound to dry the milk supply and which was bound to conserve the milk? And since one cannot distinguish between them, the Sages said: Both this and that are prohibited. Shmuel said, and some say Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira. In terms of practical halakha, according to all versions of the disagreement, Shmuel holds that it is prohibited in both cases. When Ravin came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of the anonymous first tanna of the mishna. He permits goats to go out with their udders bound in all cases.

מתני׳ ובמה אינה יוצאה לא יצא גמל במטולטלת לא עקוד ולא רגול וכן שאר כל הבהמות

MISHNA: And with what may an animal not go out into the public domain on Shabbat? A camel may not go out with a saddlecloth, nor may it go out akud or ragul, which are different ways of tying its legs together, as will be explained in the Gemara. And likewise, tying all other animals in those manners is prohibited.

לא יקשור גמלים זה בזה וימשוך אבל מכניס חבלים לתוך ידו וימשוך ובלבד שלא יכרוך:

And likewise, one may not tie camels one to the other and pull the lead camel, thereby pulling the others after it. However, he may place the ropes tied to each of the camels in his hand and pull them all, provided that he does not intertwine the ropes.

גמ׳ תנא לא יצא הגמל במטולטלת הקשורה לו בזנבו אבל יוצא הוא במטולטלת הקשורה בזנבו ובחוטרתו אמר רבה בר רב הונא יוצא הגמל במטולטלת הקשורה לה בשילייתה:

GEMARA: It was taught in the Tosefta: A camel may not go out with a saddlecloth tied to its tail alone. However, it may go out with a saddlecloth tied to both its tail and its hump, as in that case one can assume that the saddlecloth will not fall off. Rabba bar Rav Huna said: A female camel may go out with a saddlecloth tied to its afterbirth. Because any movement of the saddlecloth will cause pain, the animal will not attempt to detach it. Therefore, there is no room for concern lest it fall.

לא עקוד ולא רגול: אמר רב יהודה עקוד עקידת יד ורגל כיצחק בן אברהם רגול שלא יכוף ידו על גבי זרועו ויקשור

We learned in the mishna: A camel may not go out akud or ragul. Rav Yehuda said: Akud means that the animal’s foreleg and hind leg are bound together, similar to the binding of Isaac, son of Abraham, with regard to whom the term vaya’akod is employed. Ragul means that one may not bend the lower part of the foreleg onto the upper foreleg and tie it. That was done so that the camel would have the use of only three legs and would be unable to run away.

מיתיבי עקוד שתי ידים ושתי רגלים רגול שלא יכוף ידו על גבי זרועו ויקשור הוא דאמר כי האי תנא דתניא עקוד עקידת יד ורגל או שתי ידים ושתי רגלים רגול שלא יכוף ידו על גבי זרועו ויקשור

The Gemara raises an objection from the following baraita: Akud means that the animal’s two forelegs and two hind legs are bound together. Ragul means that one may not bend the lower part of the foreleg onto the upper foreleg and tie it. The Gemara answers: Rav Yehuda holds in accordance with this tanna, as it was taught in a baraita: Akud means that either the animal’s foreleg and hind leg or its two forelegs and two hind legs are bound together. Ragul means that one may not bend the lower part of the foreleg onto the upper foreleg and tie it.

ואכתי לא דמי בשלמא רישא וסיפא ניחא מציעתא קשיא

The Gemara asks: And this baraita and Rav Yehuda’s statement are still not the same. Granted, the first clause, the first case of akud, and the last clause, the case of ragul, work out well. The baraita and the opinion of Rav Yehuda correspond. However, the middle clause is difficult. According to the baraita, when the animal’s two forelegs and two hind legs are bound together, that is also considered akud, contrary to Rav Yehuda’s opinion.

אלא הוא דאמר כי האי תנא עקוד עקידת יד ורגל כיצחק בן אברהם רגול שלא יכוף ידו על גבי זרועו ויקשור:

Rather, Rav Yehuda stated his opinion in accordance with this tanna, who said in a baraita: Akud means that the animal’s foreleg and hind leg are bound together, similar to the binding of Isaac, son of Abraham. Ragul means that one may not bend the lower part of the foreleg onto the upper foreleg and tie it.

ולא יקשור גמלים: מאי טעמא אמר רב אשי משום דמיחזי כמאן דאזיל לחינגא:

We learned in the mishna: And one may not tie camels one to the other and pull the lead camel, thereby pulling the others after it. The Gemara asks: What is the reason for this? Rav Ashi said: Because he appears like one going to the market [ḥinga] to sell merchandise or to deliver a caravan of camels. In deference to Shabbat, one may not create that impression.

אבל מכניס: אמר רב אשי לא שנו אלא לענין כלאים כלאים דמאי אילימא כלאים דאדם והתנן אדם מותר עם כולם לחרוש ולמשוך

The mishna continues: However, he may place the ropes tied to each of the camels in his hand and pull them all, provided that he does not intertwine the ropes. Rav Ashi said: This prohibition was taught not with regard to the halakhot of Shabbat but only with regard to the halakhot of prohibited mixtures of diverse kinds. The Gemara asks: Diverse kinds of what? If you say that it is referring to the prohibited mixture of the diverse kinds of man and animal, i.e., a person may not be tied to an animal, just as plowing with the diverse kinds of an ox and a donkey is prohibited, that is difficult. Didn’t we learn in a mishna: A person is permitted to plow and to pull a wagon together with all animals, as the prohibition is limited to diverse kinds of animals?

אלא כלאים דחבלים והתניא התוכף תכיפה אחת אינה חיבור

Rather, the problem here is one of diverse kinds of ropes. If one rope is made of wool and another of linen, it is prohibited to intertwine them because that would create a forbidden mixture of the diverse kinds of wool and linen. However, this too is difficult, as, wasn’t it taught in a baraita: One who attaches a swatch of wool and a swatch of linen with a single stitch or knot, it is not considered a connection with regard to the prohibition of diverse kinds? All the more so in this case, where the ropes are not tied together at all but are merely intertwined, it should not be considered a connection.

לעולם כלאים דחבלים והכי קאמר ובלבד שלא יכרוך ויקשור

The Gemara answers: Actually, the problem here is one of diverse kinds of ropes, and the mishna is saying as follows: Provided that he does not intertwine the ropes and tie them together. Ropes that are intertwined and tied together constitute a double knot, which is considered a connection with regard to the prohibition of diverse kinds of wool and linen.

אמר שמואל ובלבד שלא יצא [חבל] מתחת ידו טפח והא תנא דבי שמואל טפחיים

Shmuel said that there is another restriction that applies to pulling camels with ropes on Shabbat. It is only permitted provided that a handbreadth of the rope does not hang below his hand to avoid the appearance that he is carrying a rope in his hand on Shabbat. The Gemara raises an objection: Didn’t a Sage of the school of Shmuel teach a baraita: Provided that two handbreadths of the rope do not hang below his hand?

אמר אביי השתא דאמר שמואל טפח ותנא דבי שמואל טפחיים שמואל הלכה למעשה אתא לאשמעינן

Abaye said: Now that Shmuel said one handbreadth, and a Sage of the school of Shmuel taught two handbreadths, it is reasonable to conclude that Shmuel came to teach us the practical halakha. Even though the tanna’im permitted pulling the camel as long as there is less than two handbreadths of rope hanging below his hand, in practice, one should be stringent and not leave even one handbreadth hanging.