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.” מֵרֵעֵהוּ חָסֶד״ — שֶׁכֵּן בְּלָשׁוֹן יְוָנִית קוֹרִין לְכֶלֶב ״לַמָּס״. רַב נַחְמָן בַּר יִצְחָק אָמַר: אַף פּוֹרֵק מִמֶּנּוּ יִרְאַת שָׁמַיִם, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר ״וְיִרְאַת שַׁדַּי יַעֲזוֹב״.
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. הַהִיא אִיתְּתָא דַּעֲיַילָא לְהָהוּא בֵּיתָא לְמֵיפָא. נְבַח בָּהּ כַּלְבָּא, אִיתְעֲקַר וַלְדַּהּ. אֲמַר לַהּ מָרֵי דְבֵיתָא לָא תִּידְחֲלִי, דִּשְׁקִילִי נִיבֵיהּ וּשְׁקִילִין טוּפְרֵיהּ. אֲמַרָה לֵיהּ: שְׁקִילָא טֵיבוּתָיךְ וְשַׁדְיָא אַחִיזְרֵי, כְּבָר נָד וָלָד.
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. אָמַר רַב הוּנָא: מַאי דִכְתִיב: ״שְׂמַח בָּחוּר בְּיַלְדוּתֶךָ וִיטִיבְךָ לִבְּךָ בִּימֵי בְחוּרוֹתֶיךָ וְהַלֵּךְ בְּדַרְכֵי לִבְּךָ וּבְמַרְאֵה עֵינֶיךָ וְדָע כִּי עַל כׇּל אֵלֶּה יְבִיאֲךָ הָאֱלֹהִים בַּמִּשְׁפָּט״ — עַד כָּאן דִּבְרֵי יֵצֶר הָרָע, מִכָּאן וְאֵילָךְ דִּבְרֵי יֵצֶר טוֹב.
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. רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ אָמַר: עַד כָּאן לְדִבְרֵי תוֹרָה, מִכָּאן וְאֵילָךְ לְמַעֲשִׂים טוֹבִים.
We learned in the mishna that a garter is pure. Rav Yehuda said: Garter; that is a bracelet worn on the arm. בִּירִית טְהוֹרָה. אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה: בִּירִית זוֹ אֶצְעָדָה.

Koren Talmud Bavli (Steinsaltz Center)

The Koren Talmud Bavli is a groundbreaking edition of the Talmud that fuses the innovative design of Koren Publishers Jerusalem with the incomparable scholarship of Rabbi Adin Steinsaltz.

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. מֵתִיב רַב יוֹסֵף: בִּירִית טְהוֹרָה וְיוֹצֵא בָּהּ בְּשַׁבָּת, וְאִילּוּ אֶצְעָדָה טְמֵאָה הִיא!
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. הָכִי קָאָמַר: בִּירִית תַּחַת אֶצְעָדָה עוֹמֶדֶת.
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. יָתֵיב רָבִין וְרַב הוּנָא קַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב יִרְמְיָה, וְיָתֵיב רַב יִרְמְיָה וְקָא מְנַמְנֵם. וְיָתֵיב רָבִין וְקָאָמַר: — בִּירִית בְּאַחַת, כְּבָלִים בִּשְׁתַּיִם.
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. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב הוּנָא: אֵלּוּ וְאֵלּוּ בִּשְׁתַּיִם, וּמְטִילִין שַׁלְשֶׁלֶת בֵּינֵיהֶן וְנַעֲשׂוּ כְּבָלִים.
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? וְשַׁלְשֶׁלֶת שֶׁבּוֹ מְשַׁוְּיָא לֵיהּ מָנָא?
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. וְכִי תֵּימָא כְּרַבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר נַחְמָנִי, דְּאָמַר רַבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר נַחְמָנִי אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: מִנַּיִין לְמַשְׁמִיעַ קוֹל בִּכְלֵי מַתָּכוֹת שֶׁהוּא טָמֵא — שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״כׇּל דָּבָר אֲשֶׁר יָבֹא בָאֵשׁ״ — אֲפִילּוּ דִּיבּוּר בַּמַּשְׁמָע.
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. בִּשְׁלָמָא הָתָם — קָא בָעוּ לַהּ לְקָלָא, וְקָעָבֵיד מַעֲשֶׂה, הָכָא מַאי מַעֲשֶׂה קָעָבֵיד?
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. הָכָא נָמֵי קָא עָבֵיד מַעֲשֶׂה, דְּאָמַר רַבָּה בַּר בַּר חָנָה אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: מִשְׁפָּחָה אַחַת הָיְתָה בִּירוּשָׁלַיִם שֶׁהָיוּ פְּסִיעוֹתֵיהֶן גַּסּוֹת וְהָיוּ בְּתוּלוֹתֵיהֶן נוֹשְׁרוֹת, עָשׂוּ לָהֶן כְּבָלִים וְהֵטִילוּ שַׁלְשֶׁלֶת בֵּינֵיהֶן, שֶׁלֹּא יִהְיוּ פְּסִיעוֹתֵיהֶן גַּסּוֹת וְלֹא הָיוּ בְּתוּלוֹתֵיהֶן נוֹשְׁרוֹת. אִיתְּעַר בְּהוּ רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה, אֲמַר לְהוּ: יִישַׁר, וְכֵן אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן.
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. כִּי אֲתָא רַב דִּימִי אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: מִנַּיִין לְאָרִיג כׇּל שֶׁהוּא שֶׁהוּא טָמֵא — מִצִּיץ.
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. אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: וְצִיץ אָרִיג הוּא?! וְהָתַנְיָא: צִיץ כְּמִין טַס שֶׁל זָהָב, וְרוֹחַב שְׁתֵּי אֶצְבָּעוֹת, וּמוּקָּף מֵאוֹזֶן לְאוֹזֶן, וְכָתוּב עָלָיו בִּשְׁתֵּי שִׁיטִין: ״יוֹד הֵא״ לְמַעְלָה, וְ״קוֹדֶשׁ לָמֶד״ לְמַטָּה.
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? וְאָמַר רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי: אֲנִי רְאִיתִיו בְּרוֹמִי וְכָתוּב עָלָיו ״קֹדֶשׁ לַה׳״ בְּשִׁיטָה אַחַת.
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. כִּי סְלֵיק רַב דִּימִי לִנְהַרְדְּעָא שְׁלַח לְהוּ: דְּבָרִים שֶׁאָמַרְתִּי לָכֶם טָעוּת הֵם בְּיָדִי, בְּרַם כָּךְ אָמְרוּ מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: מִנַּיִין לְתַכְשִׁיט כׇּל שֶׁהוּא שֶׁהוּא טָמֵא — מִצִּיץ. וּמִנַּיִין לְאָרִיג כׇּל שֶׁהוּא שֶׁהוּא טָמֵא: — מֵ״אוֹ בֶגֶד״.
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. תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: אָרִיג כׇּל שֶׁהוּא — טָמֵא, וְתַכְשִׁיט כׇּל שֶׁהוּא — טָמֵא. אָרִיג וְתַכְשִׁיט כׇּל שֶׁהוּא — טָמֵא. מוּסָף שַׂק עַל הַבֶּגֶד שֶׁטָּמֵא מִשּׁוּם אָרִיג.
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. אָמַר רָבָא: אָרִיג כׇּל שֶׁהוּא טָמֵא — מֵ״אוֹ בֶגֶד״. תַּכְשִׁיט כׇּל שֶׁהוּא טָמֵא — מִצִּיץ. אָרִיג וְתַכְשִׁיט כׇּל שֶׁהוּא טָמֵא — מִ״כׇּל כְּלִי מַעֲשֶׂה״.
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? אֲמַר לֵיהּ הָהוּא מֵרַבָּנַן לְרָבָא: הָהוּא בְּמִדְיָן כְּתִיב!
Rava said to him: He derived by means of a verbal analogy אֲמַר לֵיהּ: גָּמַר