Shabbat 106

דומיא דקמיע ש"מ:

analogous to an amulet.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The purpose of which is not pleasure but the avoidance of sickness. ');">¹</span>

אמר מר ולא בקמיע אע"פ שהוא מומחה והא אנן תנן ולא בקמיע שאינו מומחה הא מומחה שפיר דמי ה"נ שאינו מומחה

This proves it.

והא אע"פ שהוא מומחה קתני מומחה לאדם ואינו מומחה לבהמה ומי איכא מומחה לאדם ולא הוי מומחה לבהמה אין אדם דאית ליה מזלא מסייע ליה בהמה דלית לה מזלא לא מסייע לה

The Master said: 'Nor with an amulet, though it is proven'. But we learnt: 'Nor with an amulet that is not proven'; hence if it is proven, it is permitted? — That means proven in respect of human beings but not in respect of animals. But can they be proven in respect of human beings yet not in respect of animals? — Yes: for it may help man, who is under planetary influence, but not animals, who are not under planetary influence.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The planetary influence was regarded as in the nature of a protecting angel; v. Sanh., Sonc. ed., p. 629, n. 10. ');">²</span>

אי הכי מאי זה חומר בבהמה מבאדם מי סברת אקמיע קאי אסנדל קאי

If so, how is this 'a greater stringency in the case of an animal then in the case of a human being'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For a man too may go out only with an amulet proven for humans. ');">³</span>

ת"ש סכין ומפרכסין לאדם ואין סכין ומפרכסין לבהמה מאי לאו דאיכא מכה ומשום צער לא דגמר מכה ומשום תענוג

— Do you think that that refers to amulets? It refers to the shoe.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' With which an animal may not be led out, though that is permitted for men. ');">⁴</span>

ת"ש בהמה שאחזה דם אין מעמידין אותה במים בשביל שתצטנן אדם שאחזו דם מעמידין אותו במים בשביל שיצטנן אמר עולא גזירה משום שחיקת סממנין

Come and hear: One may anoint [a sore] and scrape [a scab] off for a human being, but not for an animal. Surely that means that there is [still] a sore, the purpose being [to obviate] pain? — No. It means that the sore has healed,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'is finished'. ');">⁵</span>

אי הכי אדם נמי אדם נראה כמיקר

the purpose being pleasure.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To mollify the slight rawness which remains; that rawness, however, does not really cause suffering. ');">⁶</span>

א"ה בהמה נמי נראה כמיקר אין מיקר לבהמה

Come and hear: If an animal has an attack of congestion. It may not be made to stand in water to be cooled; if a human being has an attack of congestion, he may be made to stand in water to be cooled?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' On the Sabbath. This proves that in the case of an animal, even to obviate its sufferings. it is forbidden. ');">⁷</span>

ולבהמה מי גזרינן והתניא היתה עומדת חוץ לתחום קורא לה והיא באה ולא גזרינן דילמא אתי לאתויי

— 'Ulla answered: It is a preventive measure, on account of the crushing of [medical] ingredients.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This is forbidden on the Sabbath, save where life is in danger. If cooling in water is permitted. it will be thought that crushing ingredients is likewise permitted. ');">⁸</span>

אמר רבינא כגון שהיה תחום שלה מובלע בתוך תחום שלו

If so, the same should also apply to man? — A man may appear to be cooling himself.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Not for medical purposes. ');">⁹</span>

ר"נ בר יצחק אמר שחיקת סממנין גופה תנאי היא דתני' בהמה שאכלה כרשינין לא יריצנה בחצר בשביל שתתרפה ורבי אושעיא מתיר דרש רבא הלכה כרבי אושעיא:

If so, an animal too may appear to be cooling itself? — There is no [mere] cooling for an animal,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It is not customary to take an animal for cooling save for medical purposes. ');">¹⁰</span>

אמר מר לא יצא הזב בכיס שלו ולא עזים בכיס שבדדיהן והתניא יוצאות עזים בכיס שבדדיהן

Now, do we enact a preventive measure in the case of animal? But it was taught: 'If it [an animal] is standing without the tehum,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Glos. ');">¹¹</span>

אמר רב יהודה לא קשיא הא דמיהדק הא דלא מיהדק

one calls it and it comes',<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. infra 151a. ');">¹²</span>

רב יוסף אמר תנאי שקלת מעלמא תנאי היא דתנן העזים יוצאות צרורות רבי יוסי אוסר בכלן חוץ מן הרחילות הכבונות ר' יהודה אומר עזים יוצאות צרורות ליבש אבל לא ליחלב

and we do not forbid this lest he [thereby] come to fetch it? — Said Rabina: It means, e.g., that its tehum fell<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'was swallowed up'. ');">¹³</span>

ואיבעית אימא הא והא ר' יהודה ולא קשיא כאן ליבש כאן ליחלב

within his tehum.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' When an animal is entrusted to a cowherd, its tehum is that of the cowherd, i.e., it may go only where the cowherd may go. Here the owner's tehum stretched beyond that of the cowherd; hence he may call the animal that strayed beyond its own tehum, for even if he forgets himself and goes for it, he is still within his own boundaries. Nevertheless he may not actually go for it, because when one (a man or a beast) goes beyond his tehum, he becomes tied to that spot and may only move within a radius of four cubits from it; hence the owner must not actually lead the animal away, but may only call it. (One can extend his tehum by placing some food at any spot within the two thousand cubits, whereupon he may then walk a further two thousand cubits from that spot. Here the owner had extended his tehum, but not the cowherd). ');">¹⁴</span>

תניא אמר ר' יהודה מעשה בעזים בית אנטוכיא שהיו דדיהן גסין ועשו להן כיסין כדי שלא יסרטו דדיהן:

R. Nahman b. Isaac said: The crushing of ingredients itself<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., whether any other form of healing is forbidden as a preventive measure, lest one come to crush ingredients too. ');">¹⁵</span>

ת"ר מעשה באחד שמתה אשתו והניחה בן לינק ולא היה לו שכר מניקה ליתן ונעשה לו נס ונפתחו לו דדין כשני דדי אשה והניק את בנו

is dependent on Tannaim. For it was taught: If an animal ate [an abundance of] vetch,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which made it constipated. ');">¹⁶</span>

אמר רב יוסף בא וראה כמה גדול אדם זה שנעשה לו נס כזה א"ל אביי אדרבה כמה גרוע אדם זה שנשתנו לו סדרי בראשית

one must not cause it to run about in the courtyard to be cured; but R. Josiah<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' v. marginal gloss cur. edd. R. Oshaia. ');">¹⁷</span>

אמר רב יהודה בא וראה כמה קשים מזונותיו של אדם שנשתנו עליו סדרי בראשית אמר רב נחמן תדע דמתרחיש ניסא ולא אברו מזוני:

permits it.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The first Tanna forbids it as a preventive against the crushing of ingredients, while R. Josiah declares this preventive measure unnecessary. ');">¹⁸</span>

ת"ר מעשה באדם אחד שנשא אשה גידמת ולא הכיר בה עד יום מותה אמר רב בא וראה כמה צנועה אשה זו שלא הכיר בה בעלה אמר לו רבי חייא זו דרכה בכך אלא כמה צנוע אדם זה שלא הכיר באשתו:

Raba lectured: The <i>halachah</i> is as R. Josiah.

זכרים יוצאין לבובין: מאי לבובין אמר רב הונא תותרי מאי משמע דהאי לבובין לישנא דקרובי הוא דכתיב (שיר השירים ד, ט) לבבתני אחותי כלה

The Master said: 'A <i>zab</i> may not go out with his pouch, nor goats with the pouch attached to their udders.' But it was taught: Goats may go out with the pouch attached to their udders? Said Rab Judah, There is no difficulty: Here it means that it is tightly fastened;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And there is no fear of its falling off, so that the owner may carry it. ');">¹⁹</span>

עולא אמר עור שקושרין להם כנגד לבם כדי שלא יפלו עליהן זאבים זאבים אזכרים נפלי אנקיבות לא נפלי משום דמסגו בריש עדרא וזאבין בריש עדרא נפלי בסוף עדרא לא נפלי אלא משום דשמני ובנקבות ליכא שמני ותו מי ידעי בין הני להני אלא משום דזקפי חוטמייהו ומסגו כי דוו

there it is not tightly fastened. R. Joseph answered: You quote Tannaim at random!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Aliter: have you removed Tannaim from the world, v. Rashi. ');">²⁰</span>

רב נחמן בר יצחק אמר עור שקושרין להן תחת זכרותן כדי שלא יעלו על הנקבות ממאי מדקתני סיפא והרחלים יוצאות שחוזות מאי שחוזות שאוחזין האליה שלהן למעלה כדי שיעלו עליהן זכרים רישא כדי שלא יעלו על הנקבות וסיפא כדי שיעלו עליהן זכרים

This is a controversy of Tannaim. For we learnt: GOATS MAY BE LED OUT [WITH THEIR UDDERS] TIED UP. R. JOSE FORBIDS IN ALL THESE CASES, SAVE EWES THAT ARE COVERED. R. JUDAH SAID: GOATS MAY BE LED OUT [WITH THEIR UDDERS] TIED UP IN ORDER TO GO DRY, BUT NOT IN ORDER TO SAVE THEIR MILK.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Thus this is disputed in our Mishnah, and so possibly in the Baraithas too. ');">²¹</span>

מאי משמע דהאי שחוזות לישנא דגלויי הוא דכתיב (משלי ז, י) והנה אשה לקראתו

Alternatively, both are according to R. Judah: in the one case it is in order that they may go dry; in the other it is for milking.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Rashi: to preserve the milk in its pouch. Ri: both are to protect the udders from being scratched by thorns, but in the one case it is desired that the goats shall go dry; then it is permitted, since it is tied very tightly; but in the other it is desired that the goats shall remain milkers; then it is forbidden, because it is lightly tied. ');">²²</span> It was taught: R. Judah said: It once happened that goats in a household of Antioch<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The capital of Syria. ');">²³</span> had large udders, and pouches were made for them, that their udders should not be lacerated. Our Rabbis taught: It once happened that a man's wife died and left a child to be suckled, and he could not afford to pay a wet-nurse, whereupon a miracle was performed for him and his teats opened like the two teats of a woman and he suckled his son. R. Joseph observed, Come and see how great was this man, that such a miracle was performed on his account! Said Abaye to him, On the contrary: how lowly was this man, that the order of the Creation<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'the beginning'; i.e., nature. ');">²⁴</span> was changed on his account!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In Ber. 20a Abaye himself regards miracles wrought for people as testifying to their greatness and merit. Rashi observes that his lowliness lay in the fact that a means of earning money was not opened to him. ');">²⁵</span> Rab Judah observed, Come and see how difficult are men's wants [of being satisfied], that the order of the Creation had to be altered for him! R. Nahman said: The proof is that miracles do [frequently] occur, whereas food is [rarely] created<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So Rashi. ');">²⁶</span> miraculously. Our Rabbis taught: It once happened that a man married a woman with a stumped hand, yet he did not perceive it in her until the day of her death. Rabbi observed: How modest this woman must have been, that her husband did not know her! Said R. Hiyya to him, For her it was natural;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It is natural for a woman to cover herself, particularly when it is in her own interest. ');">²⁷</span> but how modest was this man, that he did not scrutinize his wife! RAMS MAY GO OUT COUPLED [LEBUBIN]. What is lebubin? R. Huna said: coupled. How is it indicated that LEBUBIN implies nearness? For it is written, Thou hast drawn me near,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Heb. libabtini (E.V. Thou hast ravished my heart). ');">²⁸</span> my sister, my bride.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cant. IV, 9. ');">²⁹</span> 'Ulla said: It refers to the hide which is tied over their hearts<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Heb. leb, which 'Ulla takes to be the root of lebubin. ');">³⁰</span> that wolves should not attack them.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Thus he translates: RAMS MAY GO OUT with their hides over their hearts. Wolves usually seize beasts at the heart (Rashi). ');">³¹</span> Do then wolves attack rams only but not ewes? — [Yes.] because they [the rams] travel at the head of the flock. And do wolves attack the head of the flock and not the rear? — Rather [they attack rams] because they are fat. But are there no fat ones among ewes? Moreover, can they distinguish between them? — Rather it is because their noses are elevated and they march along as though looking out [for the wolf].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which rouses its ire, Var. lec.: ke-budin, like bears, i.e., proudly and fiercely. V. D.S. ');">³²</span> R. Nahman b. Isaac said, It means the skin which is tied under their genitals, to restrain them from copulating with the females. Whence [is this interpretation derived]? Because the following clause states: AND EWES MAY GO OUT SHEHUZOTH. What is SHEHUZOTH? With their tails tied back<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Heb. she'ohazin, lit., 'we catch up' ');">³³</span> upwards, for the males to copulate with them: thus in the first clause it is that they should not copulate with the females, whilst in the second it is for the males to copulate with them. Where is it implied that SHEHUZOTH denotes exposed? In the verse, And behold, there met him a woman