Shabbat 58aשבת נ״ח א
The William Davidson Talmudתלמוד מהדורת ויליאם דוידסון
Save "Shabbat 58a"
Toggle Reader Menu Display Settings
58aנ״ח א

אין בה משום עטרות כלות

the rabbinic decree prohibiting adorning brides with bridal crowns to commemorate the destruction of the Temple does not apply to an istema.

ושמואל אמר כבלא דעבדא תנן ומי אמר שמואל הכי והאמר שמואל יוצא העבד בחותם שבצוארו אבל לא בחותם שבכסותו

Earlier, the Gemara cited Rabbi Abbahu’s opinion that the kavul mentioned in the mishna, which one may not wear into the public domain on Shabbat, is a woolen cap. And Shmuel said: It is the seal of a slave that we learned about in the mishna. The Gemara asks: And did Shmuel actually say this? Didn’t Shmuel say: A slave may go out on Shabbat with a seal that is around his neck but not with a seal that is on his clothes? Apparently, Shmuel holds that one may go out into the public domain with a slave’s seal. How, then, could he say that kavul in the mishna, with which one may not go out into the public domain, is referring to the seal of a slave?

לא קשיא הא דעבד ליה רביה הא דעבד איהו לנפשיה

The Gemara answers: This is not difficult. This, where Shmuel said that one may go out with a slave’s seal on Shabbat, is referring to a case where his master made it for him. The slave will not remove it because he fears his master. Therefore, there is no concern lest he carry it. However, that, where the mishna said that it is prohibited to go out with a kavul, which according to Shmuel is the seal of a slave, is referring to a case where he made it for himself to indicate to all who his master is so that he may enjoy his master’s protection. In that case, since it is dependent solely upon his discretion, there is concern lest he remove the seal and carry it. Therefore, the Sages prohibited going out with it into the public domain.

במאי אוקימתא להא דשמואל דעבד ליה רביה בחותם שבכסותו אמאי לא

The Gemara asks: In what case did you establish this statement of Shmuel? It is in the case of a seal that his master made for him. If so, why may he not go out with a seal on his clothes? There too, since his master made it for him he will not remove it.

דילמא מיפסק ומירתת ומיקפל ליה ומחית ליה אכתפיה כדרב יצחק בר יוסף דאמר רב יצחק בר יוסף אמר רבי יוחנן היוצא בטלית מקפלת ומונחת לו על כתפיו בשבת חייב חטאת

The Gemara answers: There the concern is that perhaps the seal will be severed, and the slave will fear his master and fold his cloak and place it on his shoulders so that his master will not see that he has no seal on his clothing. That concern is in accordance with the opinion of Rav Yitzḥak bar Yosef; as Rav Yitzḥak bar Yosef said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: One who goes out into the public domain with a cloak folded and resting on his shoulders on Shabbat is liable to bring a sin-offering. That is not the manner in which one wears a garment; it is the manner in which one carries a burden.

וכי הא דאמר ליה שמואל לרב חיננא בר שילא כולהו רבנן דבי ריש גלותא לא ליפקו בסרבלי חתימי לבר מינך דלא קפדי עליך דבי ריש גלותא:

And this is like that which Shmuel said to Rav Ḥinnana bar Sheila: All of the Sages affiliated with the house of the Exilarch may not go out on Shabbat with sealed cloaks [sarbal], i.e., garments with seals on them, except for you, since the people of the Exilarch’s house are not particular with regard to you. The Sages affiliated with the Exilarch were officially considered servants of the house and would wear the seal of the house of the Exilarch. Therefore, it was prohibited for them to go out into the public domain on Shabbat with a cloak bearing the Exilarch’s seal, lest the seal break and, in fear of the Exilarch, they remove the cloak, fold it, place it on their shoulders, and carry it on Shabbat. Only Rav Ḥinnana bar Sheila was permitted to go out with this seal on Shabbat since the people of the Exilarch’s house were not exacting with him. Even if he wore clothing with no seal, they would not consider it an act of insubordination against the Exilarch.

גופא אמר שמואל יוצא העבד בחותם שבצוארו אבל לא בחותם שבכסותו תניא נמי הכי יוצא העבד בחותם שבצוארו אבל לא בחותם שבכסותו

The Gemara discusses the matter itself: Shmuel said that a slave may go out with a seal that is around his neck but not with a seal that is on his clothes. That opinion was also taught in a baraita: A slave may go out with a seal that is around his neck but not with a seal that is on his clothes.

ורמינהו לא יצא העבד בחותם שבצוארו ולא בחותם שבכסותו זה וזה אין מקבלין טומאה ולא בזוג שבצוארו אבל יוצא הוא בזוג שבכסותו זה וזה מקבלין טומאה

The Gemara raises a contradiction from another baraita: The slave may neither go out with a seal that is around his neck nor with a seal that is on his clothes on Shabbat, and both this and that cannot become ritually impure. And he may not go out with a bell that is hung around his neck; however, he may go out with a bell that is on his clothes, and both this and that can become ritually impure.

ולא תצא בהמה לא בחותם שבצוארה ולא בחותם שבכסותה ולא בזוג שבכסותה ולא בזוג שבצוארה זה וזה אין מקבלין טומאה

And an animal may neither go out with a seal that is around its neck, nor with a seal that is on its clothes, nor with a bell that is on its clothes, nor with a bell that is around its neck since with regard to an animal these are considered burdens not ornaments. Both this, the seal, and that, the bell, cannot become ritually impure because animal ornaments and utensils do not fall into the category of objects that can become ritually impure. Apparently, it is even prohibited for a slave to go out with a seal around his neck, contrary to Shmuel’s opinion.

לימא הא דעבד ליה רביה הא דעבד איהו לנפשיה

The Gemara answers: Say that this baraita, which permits going out, is referring to a case where his master made him the seal. Since he fears removing it, there is no concern that he will come to carry it. That baraita, which prohibits going out, is referring to a case where he made it for himself and there is concern lest he come to remove it and carry it.

לא אידי ואידי דעבד ליה רביה וכאן בשל מתכת וכאן בשל טיט וכדרב נחמן אמר רבה בר אבוה דבר המקפיד עליו רבו אין יוצאין בו דבר שאין מקפיד עליו יוצאין בו

The Gemara rejects this resolution: No, both this and that are referring to a case where his master made it for him. The difference can be explained differently. And here, where it was prohibited, it is referring to a seal of metal, and here, where it was permitted, it is a seal of clay. And as Rav Naḥman said that Rabba bar Avuh said: With an object about which his master is particular, one may not go out on Shabbat, lest it become detached from the garment, and fear of his master lead the slave to carry it in his hand. With an object about which his master is not particular, one may go out with it.

הכי נמי מסתברא מדקתני זה וזה אין מקבלין טומאה אי אמרת בשלמא של מתכת הני הוא דלא מקבלי טומאה הא כלים דידהו מקבלי טומאה

The Gemara adds: So too, it is reasonable to understand the baraita from the fact that it teaches there: This seal and that seal cannot become ritually impure. Granted, if you say it is referring to a metal seal, it is possible to understand the novel aspect of the baraita as follows: These are the objects that cannot become ritually impure; however, their vessels made of the same material can become ritually impure.

אלא אי אמרת בשל טיט תנן הני הוא דלא מקבלי טומאה הא כלים דידהו מקבלי טומאה

However, if you say that we learned with regard to seals of clay, can it be similarly inferred that these seals are the objects that cannot become ritually impure; however, their vessels made of the same material can become ritually impure?

והא תניא כלי אבנים כלי גללים וכלי אדמה אין מקבלין טומאה לא מדברי תורה ולא מדברי סופרים אלא שמע מינה של מתכת שמע מינה:

Wasn’t it taught in a baraita: Vessels of stone, vessels of dung, and vessels of earth that are not made into earthenware can neither become ritually impure by Torah law nor by rabbinic law? Apparently, even an actual vessel made of clay cannot become ritually impure. Rather, learn from it that this baraita is referring to utensils made of metal. The Gemara concludes: Indeed, conclude from it.

אמר מר ולא בזוג שבצוארו אבל יוצא הוא בזוג שבכסותו

In that same baraita the Master said that the slave may not go out with a bell that is around his neck, but he may go out with a bell that is on his clothes.

זוג שבצוארו אמאי לא דילמא מיפסיק ואתא לאיתויי זוג שבכסותו נמי ליחוש דילמא מיפסיק ואתי לאיתויי

The Gemara asks: With a bell that is around his neck, why may he not go out? It is due to concern lest it be severed and he come to carry it. If so, with a bell on his clothes too, let us be concerned lest it be severed and he come to carry it.

הכא במאי עסקינן דמיחא ביה מומחא וכדרב הונא בריה דרב יהושע דאמר רב הונא בריה דרב יהושע כל שהוא ארוג לא גזרו:

The Gemara answers: With what are we dealing here? With a case where the bell is woven into the garment, and it is in accordance with the opinion of Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, as Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, said: Anything that is woven into a garment, the Sages did not issue a decree prohibiting going out with it on Shabbat.

אמר מר לא תצא בהמה לא בחותם שבצוארה ולא בחותם שבכסותה ולא בזוג שבצוארה ולא בזוג שבכסותה זה וזה אין מקבלין טומאה

In the baraita cited earlier, it was taught that the Master said: An animal may neither go out with a seal that is around its neck, nor with a seal that is on its clothes, nor with a bell that is on its clothes, nor with a bell that is around its neck. Both this and that cannot become ritually impure.

וזוג דבהמה אין מקבלין טומאה ורמינהו זוג של בהמה טמאה

The Gemara asks: And does a bell of an animal not become ritually impure? The Gemara proceeds to raise a contradiction from that which was taught in another baraita: The bell of an animal can become ritually impure,