Shabbat 115

אין בה משום עטרות כלות

bridal crowns.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The wearing of bridal crowns was forbidden as a sign of mourning for the destruction of the Temple; v. Sot. 49a. ');">¹</span>

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

But Samuel maintained: We learnt of a slave's neck-chain. Now, did Samuel say thus? Surely Samuel said: A slave may go out with a seal round his neck,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This is the slave's neck-chain. ');">²</span>

לא קשיא הא דעבד ליה רביה הא דעבד איהו לנפשיה

but not with a seal on his garments? There is no difficulty: in the one case [the reference is] where his master set it upon him; in the other where he set it upon himself.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the former case he fears to remove it; hence he may wear it. But he is not afraid to remove it in the latter case, and possibly will. ');">³</span>

במאי אוקימתא להא דשמואל דעבד ליה רביה בחותם שבכסותו אמאי לא

How have you explained this latter [dictum] of Samuel? that his master set it upon him! Then why [may he] not [go out] with the seal on his garment? — Lest it break off, and he be afraid and fold it [the garment] and put it over his shoulder.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' He may fold the garment to hide the absence of the signet, fearing that his master may accuse him of having purposely removed it in order to pass as a free man. ');">⁴</span>

דילמא מיפסק ומירתת ומיקפל ליה ומחית ליה אכתפיה כדרב יצחק בר יוסף דא"ר יצחק בר יוסף א"ר יוחנן היוצא בטלית מקופלת ומונחת לו על כתפיו בשבת חייב חטאת

This is as R. Isaac b. Joseph, who said in R. Johanan's name: If one goes out on the Sabbath with a folded garment slung over his shoulder, he incurs a sin-offering. And [this is] as Samuel said to R. Hinena b. Shila: No scholar of the house of the Resh Galutha<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 217. n. 7. ');">⁵</span>

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

may go out with a cloak bearing a seal, except you, because the house of the Resh Galutha is not particular about you.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' From this it appears that some scholars wore a badge to indicate that they belonged to the retinue of the exilarch, and were possibly in the position of his clients. He was also evidently very particular about this, so that if the seal fell off one might fold up the garment to hide its absence. ');">⁶</span>

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

It was stated above: 'Samuel said: A slave may go out with a seal around his neck, but not with the seal on his garments.' It was taught likewise: A slave may go out with a seal around his neck, but not with the seal on his garments. But the following contradicts this: A slave may not go out with the seal around his neck, nor with the seal on his garments; and neither are susceptible to defilement.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because they are neither ornaments nor useful utensils, but merely badges of shame. ');">⁷</span>

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

[He may] not [go out] with the bell around his neck, but he may go out with the bell on his garments, and both are susceptible to defilement.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' These are ornamental. ');">⁸</span>

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

An animal may not go out with a seal around its neck nor with a seal on its covering, nor with the bell on its covering nor with the bell around its neck,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' v. supra 54b for the reason. ');">⁹</span>

לימא הא דעבד ליה רביה הא דעבד איהו לנפשיה

and none of these are susceptible to defilement.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' They are not ornamental for the animal. ');">¹⁰</span>

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

Shall we say that in the one case his master had set it upon him, while in the other he had set it upon himself?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 270, n. 6. ');">¹¹</span>

ה"נ מסתברא מדקתני זה וזה אין מקבלין טומאה אי אמרת בשלמא של מתכת הני הוא דלא מקבלי טומאה הא כלים דידהו מקבלי טומאה

— No. In both cases his master had set it upon him, but one refers to a metal [seal] while the other refers to a clay [seal].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It is shown below that this must refer to a metal seal; hence even if his master set it upon him he may not go out with it, for should it accidentally snap off the slave would be afraid to leave it in the street on account of its value, but would bring it home, which is forbidden. But the value of a clay seal is negligible, whilst if his master set it upon him he is certainly afraid to remove it; hence he may go out with it. Consequently, the prohibition in the Mishnah, which treats of a clay seal, must refer to one that he set upon himself. ');">¹²</span>

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

And [this is] as R. Nahman said in Rabbah b. Abbuha's name: That about which the master is particular,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' On account of its value. ');">¹³</span>

והא תניא כלי אבנים כלי גללים וכלי אדמה אין מקבלין טומאה לא מדברי תורה ולא מדברי סופרים אלא ש"מ של מתכת ש"מ:

one [a slave] may not go out with it; that about which the master is not particular, one may go out with it. Reason too supports this, since it is stated: 'none of these are susceptible to defilement'. Now, if you say [that the reference is to] metal [seals], it is well; [hence] only these are not susceptible to defilement, but their utensils<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the general appointments of an animal, its accoutrement and equipment, which rank as utensils. ');">¹⁴</span>

אמר מר ולא בזוג שבצוארו אבל יוצא הוא בזוג שבכסותו

are. But if you say that we learnt of clay [seals], [it might be asked] are only these not susceptible to defilement, whereas their utensils<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of clay. ');">¹⁵</span>

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

are? Surely it was taught: Utensils of stone, dung, or earth do not contract uncleanness either by Biblical or by Rabbinical law.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'the words of the scribes; v. Kid., Sonc. ed., p. 79, n. 7. These clay seals were not glazed or burnt in a kiln, to be regarded as pottery, which can be defiled. Thus there is no point in teaching that they are free thereof, for no utensil of similar make is susceptible. ');">¹⁶</span>

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

Hence it follows that the reference is to metal [seals]. This proves it.

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

The Master said: '[He may] not [go out] with the bell around his neck, but he may go out with the bell on his garment.' Why not with the bell around his neck; [presumably] 'lest it snap off and he come to carry it: then also in the case of the bell on his garment let us fear that it may snap off and he come to carry it? — The reference here is to one that was woven [sewn] into it. And [this is] in agreement with R. Huna the son of R. Joshua, who said: Concerning whatever is woven they enacted no prohibition.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., if something is woven into a garment, it may be worn on the Sabbath without fear of its falling off. V. supra 57b. ');">¹⁷</span>

וזוג דבהמה אין מקבלין טומאה ורמינהו זוג של בהמה טמאה

The Master said: 'An animal may not go out with a seal around its neck, with a seal on its covering, nor with a bell around its neck nor with a bell on its coat, and none of these are susceptible to defilement.' Now, does not an animal's bell contract uncleanness? But the following contradicts it: An animal's bell is unclean,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., liable to uncleanness. ');">¹⁸</span>