Shabbat

analogous to an amulet.  This proves it. 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.  If so, how is this 'a greater stringency in the case of an animal then in the case of a human being'?  — Do you think that that refers to amulets? It refers to the shoe. 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,  the purpose being pleasure. 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?  — 'Ulla answered: It is a preventive measure, on account of the crushing of [medical] ingredients.  If so, the same should also apply to man? — A man may appear to be cooling himself.  If so, an animal too may appear to be cooling itself? — There is no [mere] cooling for an animal,  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,  one calls it and it comes',  and we do not forbid this lest he [thereby] come to fetch it? — Said Rabina: It means, e.g., that its tehum fell  within his tehum.  R. Nahman b. Isaac said: The crushing of ingredients itself  is dependent on Tannaim. For it was taught: If an animal ate [an abundance of] vetch,  one must not cause it to run about in the courtyard to be cured; but R. Josiah  permits it.  Raba lectured: The halachah is as R. Josiah. The Master said: 'A zab 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;  there it is not tightly fastened. R. Joseph answered: You quote Tannaim at random!  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.  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.  It was taught: R. Judah said: It once happened that goats in a household of Antioch  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  was changed on his account!  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  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;  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,  my sister, my bride.  'Ulla said: It refers to the hide which is tied over their hearts  that wolves should not attack them.  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]. 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  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