מרעהו חסד שכן בלשון יונית קורין לכלב למס רב נחמן בר יצחק אמר אף פורק ממנו יראת שמים שנאמר ויראת שדי יעזוב
kindness from his friend and awe of the Almighty will leave” (Job 6:14), since in the Greek language they call a dog lamas. Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: One who keeps an evil dog in his home even divests himself of fear of Heaven, as it is stated at the end of that verse: “And awe of the Almighty will leave.”
ההיא איתתא דעיילא לההוא ביתא למיפא נבח בה כלבא איתעקר ולדה אמר לה מרי דביתא לא תידחלי דשקילי ניביה ושקילין טופריה אמרה ליה שקולא טיבותיך ושדיא אחיזרי כבר נד ולד
The Gemara relates: A certain pregnant woman who entered to use the oven in a certain house to bake, the dog in that house barked at her, and her fetus was displaced. The owner of the house said to her: Do not be afraid because his teeth have been removed and his claws have been removed. She said to him: Take your goodness and throw it on the thorns. Your encouragement is useless as the fetus has already been displaced and will certainly die.
אמר רב הונא מאי דכתיב שמח בחור בילדותך ויטיבך לבך בימי בחורותיך והלך בדרכי לבך ובמראה עיניך ודע כי על כל אלה יביאך האלהים במשפט עד כאן דברי יצר הרע מכאן ואילך דברי יצר טוב
On a related note, 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 to judgment” (Ecclesiastes 11:9)? Until here, “the sight of your eyes,” these are the words of the evil inclination; from here on, “but know that, etc.,” these are the words of the good inclination.
ריש לקיש אמר עד כאן לדברי תורה מכאן ואילך למעשים טובים:
Reish Lakish said: Until here, the verse refers to matters of Torah. One is provided the opportunity to study and involve himself in the Torah and rejoice in its innovations; from here on, “but know that, etc.,” it refers to good deeds. One will ultimately stand trial for that which he studied and did not implement.
בירית טהורה: אמר רב יהודה בירית זו אצעדה
We learned in the mishna that a garter is pure. Rav Yehuda said: Garter; that is a bracelet worn on the arm.
מתיב רב יוסף בירית טהורה ויוצא בה בשבת ואילו אצעדה טמאה היא
Rav Yosef raised an objection: It is stated here that a garter is pure and a woman may go out with it on Shabbat, while a bracelet is ritually impure. It is mentioned explicitly in the verse enumerating the spoils of the war with the Midianites: “And we have brought the Lord’s offering, what every man has gotten, of jewels of gold, armlets, and bracelets, signet rings, earrings, and girdles, to make atonement for our souls before the Lord” (Numbers 31:50). Earlier in that chapter it is written with regard to the spoils: “Purify yourselves on the third day and on the seventh day both you and your captives” (Numbers 31:19). Apparently, a bracelet can become ritually impure.
הכי קאמר בירית תחת אצעדה עומדת
Rather, this is what Rav Yehuda is saying: A garter on the leg is in place of a bracelet on the arm. It goes around the leg to hold a stocking in place just as a bracelet goes around the arm. However, unlike a bracelet, a garter cannot become ritually impure because it is not an ornament. It simply holds up the stocking.
יתיב רבין ורב הונא קמיה דרב ירמיה ויתיב רב ירמיה וקא מנמנם ויתיב רבין וקאמר בירית באחת כבלים בשתים
The Gemara relates: Ravin and Rav Huna were sitting before Rav Yirmeya. And Rav Yirmeya was sitting and dozing as the two students conversed. And Ravin sat and said: The difference between a garter and ankle chains is that a garter is worn on one leg, and ankle chains are worn on two legs.
אמר ליה רב הונא אלו ואלו בשתים ומטילין שלשלת ביניהן ונעשו כבלים
Rav Huna said to him: These garters and those ankle chains are both worn on two legs. And when she wears garters on both legs they place a chain between them, and they become vessels with the legal status equal to that of ankle chains.
ושלשלת שבו משויא ליה מנא
And Ravin asked: And does the chain that is connected to it render it a vessel? If a garter without a chain is not considered a vessel, why would the addition of a chain render it a vessel that can become ritually impure?
וכי תימא כרבי שמואל בר נחמני דאמר רבי שמואל בר נחמני אמר רבי יוחנן מניין למשמיע קול בכלי מתכות שהוא טמא שנאמר כל דבר אשר יבא באש אפילו דיבור במשמע
And if you say the reason for this is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani, as Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: From where is it derived that a metal vessel that makes a sound is considered a vessel and can become ritually impure? As it is stated: “Every thing that passes through the fire, you shall make it pass through the fire, and it shall be clean; nevertheless it shall be purified with the water of sprinkling; and all that does not pass through the fire you shall make to go through water” (Numbers 31:23). And the Sages interpret the verse homiletically: Every thing [davar], even speech [dibbur]; in other words, even an object that makes a sound shall pass through fire to become purified because it is a vessel.
בשלמא התם קא בעו לה לקלא וקעביד מעשה הכא מאי מעשה קעביד
However, this case is not similar. Granted, there, they require the vessel for the purpose of its sound and it performs an action. However, here, what action does the chain perform? Although it creates a sound, the chain serves no purpose.
הכא נמי קא עביד מעשה דאמר רבה בר בר חנה אמר רבי יוחנן משפחה אחת היתה בירושלים שהיו פסיעותיהן גסות והיו בתולותיהן נושרות עשו להן כבלים והטילו שלשלת ביניהן שלא יהיו פסיעותיהן גסות ולא היו בתולותיהן נושרות איתער בהו רבי ירמיה אמר להו יישר וכן אמר רבי יוחנן
He said to him: Here, too, the chain is performing a purposeful action, as Rabba bar bar Ḥana said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: There was one family in Jerusalem whose daughters’ strides were lengthy, and as a result their hymen membranes would fall away. In order to solve this problem they made them ankle chains and they hung a chain between them so that their strides would not be so large and, indeed, their hymen membranes would no longer fall away. Meanwhile, Rabbi Yirmeya awoke from their voices and said to them: Correct, and Rabbi Yoḥanan said likewise.
כי אתא רב דימי אמר רבי יוחנן מניין לאריג כל שהוא שהוא טמא מציץ
On the topic of ritual impurity, the Gemara relates: When Rav Dimi came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: From where is it derived that a woven fabric of any size can become ritually impure? It is derived from the frontplate [tzitz] of the High Priest, which is considered a vessel despite its small size.
אמר ליה אביי וציץ אריג הוא והתניא ציץ כמין טס של זהב ורוחב שתי אצבעות ומוקף מאוזן לאוזן וכתוב עליו בשתי שיטין יוד הא למעלה וקודש למד למטה
Abaye said to him: And is the frontplate a woven fabric? Wasn’t it taught in a baraita: The frontplate is made like a kind of smooth plate of gold, and its width is two fingerbreadths, and it encircles the forehead from ear to ear. And on it is written in two lines: Yod heh, i.e., the Tetragrammaton, above, and kodesh lamed, i.e., sacred to, below. Thus, the words: Sacred to God, were written on the frontplate. In deference to the name of God, it would be written on the top line, and the words: Sacred to, on the line below.
ואמר רבי אליעזר ברבי יוסי אני ראיתיו בעיר רומי וכתוב קדש לה׳ בשיטה אחת
And Rabbi Eliezer, son of Rabbi Yosei, said: I saw it in the Caesar’s treasury in the city of Rome and Sacred to God was written on one line. In any case, since the frontplate is a gold plate, how can it serve as a source for ritual impurity in fabrics?
כי סליק רב דימי לנהרדעא שלח להו דברים שאמרתי לכם טעות הם בידי ברם כך אמרו משום רבי יוחנן מניין לתכשיט כל שהוא שהוא טמא מציץ ומניין לאריג כל שהוא שהוא טמא מאו בגד
When Rav Dimi ascended to Neharde’a, he sent to the yeshiva students: The statements I said to you with regard to woven fabrics of any size becoming ritually impure regardless of their size, they are my mistake. However, this is what they said in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan: From where is it derived that an ornament of any size can become ritually impure? It is derived from the frontplate. And from where is it derived that a woven fabric of any size can become ritually impure? It is derived from the verse: “Or a garment or leather or sack; any vessel with which any work is done must be put into water and it shall be unclean until evening, then it shall be clean” (Leviticus 11:32). From the extraneous phrase, “or a garment,” it is derived that any garment, regardless how small, falls into this category.
תנו רבנן אריג כל שהוא טמא ותכשיט כל שהוא טמא אריג ותכשיט כל שהוא טמא מוסף שק על הבגד שטמא משום אריג
Similarly, the Sages taught in a baraita: A woven fabric of any size can become ritually impure, and an ornament of any size can become ritually impure. An object that is half woven fabric and half ornament of any size can become ritually impure. And a sack is added to the category of garment; it too is ritually impure due to woven fabric.
אמר רבא אריג כל שהוא טמא מאו בגד תכשיט כל שהוא טמא מציץ אריג ותכשיט כל שהוא טמא מכל כלי מעשה
Rava said in explanation of the baraita: A woven fabric of any size is ritually impure as derived from the phrase “or a garment.” An ornament of any size is ritually impure, as derived from the halakhot of the frontplate. A woven fabric and an ornament of any size is ritually impure, as derived from that which is stated: “And Moses and Elazar the priest took the gold from them, all vessels with which labor is done” (Numbers 31:51). Any object that can be utilized for any action falls into the category of: All vessels with which labor is done.
אמר ליה ההוא מרבנן לרבא ההוא במדין כתיב
One of the Sages said to Rava: That verse is written with regard to Midian. There it is referring specifically to ritual impurity imparted by a corpse, and how is it possible to derive from that halakhot of ritual impurity in general?
אמר ליה גמר
Rava said to him: He derived by means of a verbal analogy