Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

May 2, 2020 | ח׳ באייר תש״פ

Masechet Shabbat is sponsored in memory of Elliot Freilich, Eliyahu Daniel ben Bar Tzion David Halevi z"l by a group of women from Kehilath Jeshurun, Manhattan.

Iyar is sponsored by Aviva and Benny Adler in memory of Yosef ben Zvi HaKohen, Dr. Joseph Kahane z"l and Yehuda Aryeh Leib ben Yisachar Dov Barash, Ari Adler z"l.

Shabbat 57

Today’s shiur, as well as the whole month of Iyar, is dedicated in memory of Yehuda Aryeh Leib ben Yisachar Dov Barash, Ari Adler, z”l whose yahrzeit is today.

And two birthday dedications – Happy birthday to Deborah Kovsky from Yoni Apap and to Bill Abraham from his wife Malka Abraham who thanks you for all of your support in her Jewish learning.

With which items can a woman not go out with on Shabbat into the public domain? Accoridng to Troah law she can walk out with clothing or ornaments but the rabbis forbade items where there was a concern they would fall off or the women would remove them to show thier friends. The mishna lists items that cannot be worn for the reason mentioned above and also some that would be considered a barrier for the mikveh in which case she would take them off to dip and may then come to carry them. Which materials of strings are problematic if worn in the women’s hair? Which are permissible? On what does it depend?

מתני׳ במה אשה יוצאה ובמה אינה יוצאה

The mishna lists items that a woman may or may not carry into, or wear in the public domain on Shabbat. This depends on whether the particular object is considered an ornament, which she may wear, or merely a burden for the woman, which she may not. Even if it is considered an ornament, there is still concern that she might remove it and carry it in her hand in the public domain, which is prohibited by Torah law.

MISHNA: With what items may a woman go out into the public domain on Shabbat and with what items may she not go out?

לא תצא אשה לא בחוטי צמר ולא בחוטי פשתן ולא ברצועות שבראשה ולא תטבול בהן עד שתרפם

A woman may neither go out with strings of wool, nor with strings of flax, nor with strips of any other materials that a woman braids in the hair of her head. And a woman may not immerse in a ritual bath with them in her hair until she loosens them. When the strings or strips are tight, the water cannot reach her hair unobstructed, invalidating her immersion.

ולא בטוטפת ולא בסרביטין בזמן שאינן תפורים ולא בכבול לרשות הרבים

And, likewise, a woman may neither go out with the ornament called totefet, nor with sarvitin that are not sewn into her head covering, nor with a kavul into the public domain.

ולא בעיר של זהב ולא בקטלא ולא בנזמים ולא בטבעת שאין עליה חותם ולא במחט שאינה נקובה

And, likewise, a woman may neither go out with a city of gold ornament, nor with a katla ornament, nor with nose rings, nor with a ring that has no seal on it, nor with a needle that is not perforated, which are merely for decorative purposes.

ואם יצאת אינה חייבת חטאת:

And if she unwittingly went out wearing any of these, she is not liable to bring a sin-offering. According to Torah law, a woman is permitted to go out into the public domain wearing ornaments. However, the Sages decreed that a woman may not go out wearing certain ornaments, lest she remove them to show them to another and inadvertently carry them four cubits in the public domain.

גמ׳ טבילה מאן דכר שמה

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: Immersion, who mentioned anything about that? The mishna is dealing with the halakhot of Shabbat, so why did it mention the halakhot of immersion?

אמר רב נחמן בר יצחק אמר רבה בר אבוה מה טעם קאמר מה טעם לא תצא אשה לא בחוטי צמר ולא בחוטי פשתן מפני שאמרו חכמים בחול לא תטבול בהן עד שתרפם וכיון דבחול לא תטבול בהן עד שתרפם בשבת לא תצא דילמא מיתרמי לה טבילה של מצוה ושריא להו ואתי לאתויינהו ארבע אמות ברשות הרבים

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said that Rabba bar Avuh said: When the mishna states the halakha, it employs the style known as: What is the reason. The mention of immersion is an explanation, not a superfluous addition. The mishna should be understood as follows: What is the reason that a woman may neither go out with strings of wool nor with strings of flax? It is because the Sages said that on weekdays she may not immerse with them until she loosens them. And since on weekdays she may not immerse with them until she loosens them, on Shabbat she may not go out with them, lest a situation requiring immersion for the purpose of a mitzva come about, and she untie them, and come to carry them four cubits in the public domain.

בעא מיניה רב כהנא מרב תיכי חלילתא מאי אמר ליה אריג קאמרת כל שהוא אריג לא גזרו איתמר נמי אמר רב הונא בריה דרב יהושע כל שהוא אריג לא גזרו

Rav Kahana raised a dilemma before Rav: With regard to strings made into hollow chains, what is the halakha? Is it permissible for women to go out into the public domain with them on Shabbat or not? It depends on whether they are considered an interposition to immersion. Rav said to him: Woven, you say? With regard to anything woven, the Sages did not issue a decree. Because water reaches the hair unobstructed, there is no need to loosen the hollow chain and there is no concern lest she carry it in the public domain. It was also stated that Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, said: With regard to anything woven, the Sages did not issue a decree.

ואיכא דאמרי אמר רב הונא בריה דרב יהושע חזינא לאחוותי דלא קפדן עלייהו

And some say that Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, said: I saw that my sisters are not particular about removing them, and they bathe even with woven chains tied in their hair. Apparently, water reaches the hair. Therefore, the chain is not an interposition with regard to immersion.

מאי איכא בין הך לישנא ובין הך לישנא

The Gemara asks: What practical difference is there between this version and that version of the resolution of the dilemma?

איכא בינייהו דטניפן להך לישנא דאמר כל שהוא אריג לא גזרו הני נמי ארוג ולהך לישנא דאמרת משום קפידא כיון דטניפא מקפד קפדא עלייהו

The Gemara explains: There is a practical difference between them in a case where the chains are dirty. According to this version, in which you said: With regard to anything woven, the Sages did not issue a decree, these too are woven. And according to that version, in which you said that it is due to the fact that his sisters were not particular; in this case, since they are dirty, she is particular about them and will certainly remove them when she washes. Therefore, she is required to do so when immersing in a ritual bath as well.

תנן התם ואלו חוצצין באדם חוטי צמר וחוטי פשתן והרצועות שבראשי הבנות רבי יהודה אומר של צמר ושל שער אין חוצצין מפני שהמים באין בהן אמר רב הונא וכולן בראשי הבנות שנינו

We learned in a mishna in tractate Mikvaot: And these are the objects that interpose for a person: Strings of wool, and strings of flax, and the straps that are on the girls’ heads. Rabbi Yehuda says: Strings of wool and strands of hair do not interpose because the water reaches the hair through them. Rav Huna said: And we learned all these, strings of wool and flax, in a case where they are used to tie the hair on the girls’ heads.

מתקיף לה רב יוסף למעוטי מאי אילימא למעוטי דצואר ודמאי אילימא למעוטי דצמר השתא רך על גבי קשה חוצץ רך על גבי רך מיבעיא

Rav Yosef strongly objects to this halakha of Rav Huna: To exclude what other places in the body did Rav Huna say this? If you say that it comes to exclude strings tied to the neck, and then, strings made of what material does it exclude? If you say that it comes to exclude strings of wool, now, the mishna stated that soft strings of wool on top of hair, which is relatively hard, interpose and invalidates the immersion. With regard to soft strings on top of the soft flesh of the neck, is it necessary to say that they interpose?

ואלא למעוטי דחוטי פשתן השתא קשה על גבי קשה חוצץ קשה על גבי רך מיבעיא

Rather, say that Rav Huna’s statement came to exclude strings of flax. A similar difficulty arises: Now the mishna stated that hard strings of wool on top of hair, which is hard, interposes and invalidates the immersion. If so, with regard to hard strings on top of the soft flesh of the neck, is it necessary to say that they interpose?

אלא אמר רב יוסף היינו טעמא דרב הונא לפי שאין אשה חונקת את עצמה

Rather, Rav Yosef said, this is the reason that Rav Huna restricts the concern for interposition to strings tied in her hair and not around her neck: Because a woman does not strangle herself when adorning herself with a string or straps around her neck. Therefore, she never tightens the strings or straps to the extent that water cannot reach the skin.

איתיביה אביי הבנות יוצאות בחוטין שבאזניהן אבל לא בחבקין שבצואריהן ואי אמרת אין אשה חונקת עצמה חבקין שבצואריהן אמאי לא

Abaye raised an objection to the explanation of Rav Yosef from a baraita: The girls may go out into the public domain on Shabbat with strings in their ears. Young girls would have their ears pierced, but earrings were not placed in their ears until they were older. Instead, they inserted strings so that the holes would not close. However, they may not go out with straps around their necks. And if you say that the principle: A woman does not strangle herself, is halakhically valid, why may they not go out into the public domain with straps around their necks? They are not tied tight and do not constitute an interposition that invalidates immersion.

אמר רבינא

Ravina said:

הכא בקטלא עסקינן דאשה חונקת את עצמה דניחא לה שתראה כבעלת בשר:

Here we are dealing with a broad, ornamented strap [katla] hanging around the neck, to which a small bib is attached. A woman does strangle herself with a katla because the strap is broad and tightening it does not cause pain. She tightens it because it pleases her that she will appear fleshy. It was considered beautiful to have flesh protrude from the katla.

רבי יהודה אומר של צמר ושל שער אין חוצצין מפני שהמים באין בהן:

In the same mishna in tractate Mikvaot, Rabbi Yehuda says: Strings of wool and strands of hair do not interpose and invalidate the immersion because the water reaches through them.

אמר רב יוסף אמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל הלכה כרבי יהודה בחוטי שער

Rav Yosef said that Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda with regard to strands of hair. However, the halakha is not in accordance with his opinion with regard to wool strings.

אמר ליה אביי הלכה מכלל דפליגי

Abaye said to him: By saying that the halakha is in accordance with Rav Yehuda, by inference the Rabbis disagree with regard to strands of hair. However, no opinion stating that strands of hair constitute an interposition is cited in the mishna.

וכי תימא אי לאו דשמעינן מתנא קמא דאיירי בחוטי שער איהו נמי לא הוה מיירי ודילמא כשם קאמר להו כי היכי דמודיתו לי בחוטי שער אודו לי נמי בחוטי צמר

And if you say that had we not heard from the first tanna that he is speaking of strands of hair, Rabbi Yehuda would also not have spoken about them. Apparently, the first tanna prohibited strands of hair, and Rabbi Yehuda disagreed with him. Nevertheless, it could be explained otherwise. And, perhaps he prefaced what he was saying to the Rabbis with the phrase: Just as. Just as you agree with me that strands of hair do not interpose, agree with me that strings of wool also do not interpose. The fact that he mentioned strands of hair does not indicate a dispute; on the contrary, it is an attempt to establish a consensus with regard to the halakha.

איתמר אמר רב נחמן אמר שמואל מודים חכמים לרבי יהודה בחוטי שער

Indeed, it was stated that Rav Naḥman said that Shmuel said: The Rabbis agree with Rabbi Yehuda with regard to strands of hair.

תניא נמי הכי חוטי צמר חוצצין חוטי שער אין חוצצין רבי יהודה אומר של צמר ושל שער אין חוצצין

This opinion was also taught in a baraita: Strings of wool interpose. Strands of hair do not interpose. Rabbi Yehuda says: Both strings of wool and strands of hair do not interpose.

אמר רב נחמן בר יצחק מתניתין נמי דיקא דקתני יוצאה אשה בחוטי שער בין משלה בין משל חברתה מני אילימא רבי יהודה אפילו חוטי צמר נמי אלא לאו רבנן היא ושמע מינה בחוטי שער לא פליגי שמע מינה:

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: The language of the mishna is also precise, as we learned in a mishna in our chapter: A woman may go out with strands of hair whether they are from her own hair or whether they are from the hair of another. Whose opinion is expressed in this mishna? If you say that it is the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, even strings of wool should also have been permitted. Rather, is it not the opinion of the Rabbis; and conclude from it that with regard to strands of hair, they do not disagree? The Gemara determines: Indeed, conclude from it.

לא בטוטפת: מאי טוטפת אמר רב יוסף חומרתא דקטיפתא

The mishna said that a woman may not go out with the ornament called a totefet. The Gemara asks: What is a totefet? Rav Yosef said: A packet of spices to ward off the evil eye.

אמר ליה אביי תהוי כקמיע מומחה ותשתרי

Abaye said to him: And let the legal status of this packet be like that of an effective amulet, whose effectiveness is proven, and it should be permitted, as an effective amulet may be moved on Shabbat.

אלא אמר רב יהודה משמיה דאביי אפוזיינו תניא נמי הכי יוצאה אשה בסבכה המוזהבת ובטוטפת ובסרביטין הקבועין בה

Rather, Rav Yehuda said in the name of Abaye: A totefet is an appuzainu, an ornament worn on the forehead. This opinion was also taught in a baraita: A woman may go out with a gilded hairnet worn to hold the hair in place, and with the totefet, and with the sarvitin that are fastened to the hairnet, since a woman would not remove her head covering to show her friend those ornaments.

איזו טוטפת ואיזו סרביטין אמר רבי אבהו טוטפת המוקפת לה מאזן לאזן סרביטין המגיעין לה עד לחייה

And they said: Which is a totefet and which is sarvitin? Rabbi Abbahu said: Totefet is that which goes around her forehead from ear to ear. Sarvitin are those attached to the net that reach down to her cheeks.

אמר רב הונא עניות עושין אותן של מיני צבעונין עשירות עושין אותן של כסף ושל זהב:

Rav Huna said: Poor women make these ornaments from different types of colored materials. Wealthy women make them of silver and of gold.

ולא בכבול: אמר רבי ינאי כבול זה איני יודע מהו אי כבלא דעבדא תנן אבל כיפה של צמר שפיר דמי או דילמא כיפה של צמר תנן וכל שכן כבלא דעבדא

We learned in the mishna that a woman may not go out with a kavul. Rabbi Yannai said: This kavul, I do not know what it is. Is it the seal of a slave, who would have a seal on his clothing identifying him as a slave, about which we learned in our mishna that it is prohibited, but a cap of wool that a woman places on her hair, she may well go out wearing it? Or, perhaps we learned in our mishna that going out with a cap of wool is prohibited and all the more so that going out with the seal of a slave is prohibited.

אמר רבי אבהו מסתברא כמאן דאמר כיפה של צמר תנן ותניא נמי הכי יוצאה אשה בכבול ובאיסטמא לחצר רבי שמעון בן אלעזר אומר אף בכבול לרשות הרבים כלל אמר רבי שמעון בן אלעזר כל שהוא למטה מן השבכה יוצאין בו כל שהוא למעלה מן השבכה אין יוצאין בו

Rabbi Abbahu said: It is reasonable to say in accordance with the one who said that we learned about a cap of wool in the mishna. And this opinion was also taught in a baraita: A woman may go out with a kavul and with an istema to the courtyard on Shabbat. Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: She may even go out with the kavul into the public domain. Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar stated a principle: Anything that is worn beneath the hairnet, a woman may go out into the public domain with it, since a woman will not uncover her hair even to show off an ornament while in the public domain. Anything that is worn over the hairnet, like an ornamental hat, a woman may not go out with it. From the context and proximity of the halakha dealing with kavul to the statement of Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar, apparently a kavul is a wool cap worn under the net.

מאי איסטמא אמר רבי אבהו ביזיוני מאי ביזיוני אמר אביי אמר רב כליא פרוחי

Since istema was mentioned in the baraita, the Gemara asks: What is an istema? Rabbi Abbahu said: Istema is a beizyunei. However, Rabbi Abbahu’s explanation employed a term from the Aramaic dialect spoken in Eretz Yisrael, which was not understood in Babylonia. Therefore, they asked there: What is a beizyunei? Abaye said that Rav said: It is a small hat or ribbon used to gather hairs that protrude [kalya paruḥei] from the headdress.

תנו רבנן שלשה דברים נאמרו באיסטמא אין בה משום כלאים ואינה מטמאה בנגעים ואין יוצאין בה לרשות הרבים

The Sages taught in the Tosefta that three things were said with regard to an istema: There is no prohibition of a mixture of diverse kinds, wool and linen, in it. Since it is made of hard felt and not woven together, the prohibition of diverse kinds does not apply to material of that kind. And it does not become impure with the ritual impurity of leprosy. Only woven garments can become impure with leprosy. And women may not go out with it to the public domain on Shabbat.

משום רבי שמעון אמרו אף

In the name of Rabbi Shimon they said: Also,

Masechet Shabbat is sponsored in memory of Elliot Freilich, Eliyahu Daniel ben Bar Tzion David Halevi z"l by a group of women from Kehilath Jeshurun, Manhattan.

Iyar is sponsored by Aviva and Benny Adler in memory of Yosef ben Zvi HaKohen, Dr. Joseph Kahane z"l and Yehuda Aryeh Leib ben Yisachar Dov Barash, Ari Adler z"l.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

Copy of Back to school.._

Back to School

My children spent this past weekend preparing to return to school after nearly two months at home. As they tried...
1

The Power of Jewelry in Chapter Six

The juxtaposition of two sugyot on daf 62: is striking. On one hand, the daf goes into a historical (gory)...
daf yomi One week at a time (1)

Shabbat 55-60 – Daf Yomi: One Week at a Time

We will review Daf 55-60 this week. After finishing the 5th chapter, we will start the 6th chapter and discuss...
talking talmud_square

Shabbat 57: With Ribbons in Her Hair

A new chapter! The decree against women wearing certain kinds of adornments on Shabbat - lest they take them off...

Shabbat 57

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Shabbat 57

מתני׳ במה אשה יוצאה ובמה אינה יוצאה

The mishna lists items that a woman may or may not carry into, or wear in the public domain on Shabbat. This depends on whether the particular object is considered an ornament, which she may wear, or merely a burden for the woman, which she may not. Even if it is considered an ornament, there is still concern that she might remove it and carry it in her hand in the public domain, which is prohibited by Torah law.

MISHNA: With what items may a woman go out into the public domain on Shabbat and with what items may she not go out?

לא תצא אשה לא בחוטי צמר ולא בחוטי פשתן ולא ברצועות שבראשה ולא תטבול בהן עד שתרפם

A woman may neither go out with strings of wool, nor with strings of flax, nor with strips of any other materials that a woman braids in the hair of her head. And a woman may not immerse in a ritual bath with them in her hair until she loosens them. When the strings or strips are tight, the water cannot reach her hair unobstructed, invalidating her immersion.

ולא בטוטפת ולא בסרביטין בזמן שאינן תפורים ולא בכבול לרשות הרבים

And, likewise, a woman may neither go out with the ornament called totefet, nor with sarvitin that are not sewn into her head covering, nor with a kavul into the public domain.

ולא בעיר של זהב ולא בקטלא ולא בנזמים ולא בטבעת שאין עליה חותם ולא במחט שאינה נקובה

And, likewise, a woman may neither go out with a city of gold ornament, nor with a katla ornament, nor with nose rings, nor with a ring that has no seal on it, nor with a needle that is not perforated, which are merely for decorative purposes.

ואם יצאת אינה חייבת חטאת:

And if she unwittingly went out wearing any of these, she is not liable to bring a sin-offering. According to Torah law, a woman is permitted to go out into the public domain wearing ornaments. However, the Sages decreed that a woman may not go out wearing certain ornaments, lest she remove them to show them to another and inadvertently carry them four cubits in the public domain.

גמ׳ טבילה מאן דכר שמה

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: Immersion, who mentioned anything about that? The mishna is dealing with the halakhot of Shabbat, so why did it mention the halakhot of immersion?

אמר רב נחמן בר יצחק אמר רבה בר אבוה מה טעם קאמר מה טעם לא תצא אשה לא בחוטי צמר ולא בחוטי פשתן מפני שאמרו חכמים בחול לא תטבול בהן עד שתרפם וכיון דבחול לא תטבול בהן עד שתרפם בשבת לא תצא דילמא מיתרמי לה טבילה של מצוה ושריא להו ואתי לאתויינהו ארבע אמות ברשות הרבים

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said that Rabba bar Avuh said: When the mishna states the halakha, it employs the style known as: What is the reason. The mention of immersion is an explanation, not a superfluous addition. The mishna should be understood as follows: What is the reason that a woman may neither go out with strings of wool nor with strings of flax? It is because the Sages said that on weekdays she may not immerse with them until she loosens them. And since on weekdays she may not immerse with them until she loosens them, on Shabbat she may not go out with them, lest a situation requiring immersion for the purpose of a mitzva come about, and she untie them, and come to carry them four cubits in the public domain.

בעא מיניה רב כהנא מרב תיכי חלילתא מאי אמר ליה אריג קאמרת כל שהוא אריג לא גזרו איתמר נמי אמר רב הונא בריה דרב יהושע כל שהוא אריג לא גזרו

Rav Kahana raised a dilemma before Rav: With regard to strings made into hollow chains, what is the halakha? Is it permissible for women to go out into the public domain with them on Shabbat or not? It depends on whether they are considered an interposition to immersion. Rav said to him: Woven, you say? With regard to anything woven, the Sages did not issue a decree. Because water reaches the hair unobstructed, there is no need to loosen the hollow chain and there is no concern lest she carry it in the public domain. It was also stated that Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, said: With regard to anything woven, the Sages did not issue a decree.

ואיכא דאמרי אמר רב הונא בריה דרב יהושע חזינא לאחוותי דלא קפדן עלייהו

And some say that Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, said: I saw that my sisters are not particular about removing them, and they bathe even with woven chains tied in their hair. Apparently, water reaches the hair. Therefore, the chain is not an interposition with regard to immersion.

מאי איכא בין הך לישנא ובין הך לישנא

The Gemara asks: What practical difference is there between this version and that version of the resolution of the dilemma?

איכא בינייהו דטניפן להך לישנא דאמר כל שהוא אריג לא גזרו הני נמי ארוג ולהך לישנא דאמרת משום קפידא כיון דטניפא מקפד קפדא עלייהו

The Gemara explains: There is a practical difference between them in a case where the chains are dirty. According to this version, in which you said: With regard to anything woven, the Sages did not issue a decree, these too are woven. And according to that version, in which you said that it is due to the fact that his sisters were not particular; in this case, since they are dirty, she is particular about them and will certainly remove them when she washes. Therefore, she is required to do so when immersing in a ritual bath as well.

תנן התם ואלו חוצצין באדם חוטי צמר וחוטי פשתן והרצועות שבראשי הבנות רבי יהודה אומר של צמר ושל שער אין חוצצין מפני שהמים באין בהן אמר רב הונא וכולן בראשי הבנות שנינו

We learned in a mishna in tractate Mikvaot: And these are the objects that interpose for a person: Strings of wool, and strings of flax, and the straps that are on the girls’ heads. Rabbi Yehuda says: Strings of wool and strands of hair do not interpose because the water reaches the hair through them. Rav Huna said: And we learned all these, strings of wool and flax, in a case where they are used to tie the hair on the girls’ heads.

מתקיף לה רב יוסף למעוטי מאי אילימא למעוטי דצואר ודמאי אילימא למעוטי דצמר השתא רך על גבי קשה חוצץ רך על גבי רך מיבעיא

Rav Yosef strongly objects to this halakha of Rav Huna: To exclude what other places in the body did Rav Huna say this? If you say that it comes to exclude strings tied to the neck, and then, strings made of what material does it exclude? If you say that it comes to exclude strings of wool, now, the mishna stated that soft strings of wool on top of hair, which is relatively hard, interpose and invalidates the immersion. With regard to soft strings on top of the soft flesh of the neck, is it necessary to say that they interpose?

ואלא למעוטי דחוטי פשתן השתא קשה על גבי קשה חוצץ קשה על גבי רך מיבעיא

Rather, say that Rav Huna’s statement came to exclude strings of flax. A similar difficulty arises: Now the mishna stated that hard strings of wool on top of hair, which is hard, interposes and invalidates the immersion. If so, with regard to hard strings on top of the soft flesh of the neck, is it necessary to say that they interpose?

אלא אמר רב יוסף היינו טעמא דרב הונא לפי שאין אשה חונקת את עצמה

Rather, Rav Yosef said, this is the reason that Rav Huna restricts the concern for interposition to strings tied in her hair and not around her neck: Because a woman does not strangle herself when adorning herself with a string or straps around her neck. Therefore, she never tightens the strings or straps to the extent that water cannot reach the skin.

איתיביה אביי הבנות יוצאות בחוטין שבאזניהן אבל לא בחבקין שבצואריהן ואי אמרת אין אשה חונקת עצמה חבקין שבצואריהן אמאי לא

Abaye raised an objection to the explanation of Rav Yosef from a baraita: The girls may go out into the public domain on Shabbat with strings in their ears. Young girls would have their ears pierced, but earrings were not placed in their ears until they were older. Instead, they inserted strings so that the holes would not close. However, they may not go out with straps around their necks. And if you say that the principle: A woman does not strangle herself, is halakhically valid, why may they not go out into the public domain with straps around their necks? They are not tied tight and do not constitute an interposition that invalidates immersion.

אמר רבינא

Ravina said:

הכא בקטלא עסקינן דאשה חונקת את עצמה דניחא לה שתראה כבעלת בשר:

Here we are dealing with a broad, ornamented strap [katla] hanging around the neck, to which a small bib is attached. A woman does strangle herself with a katla because the strap is broad and tightening it does not cause pain. She tightens it because it pleases her that she will appear fleshy. It was considered beautiful to have flesh protrude from the katla.

רבי יהודה אומר של צמר ושל שער אין חוצצין מפני שהמים באין בהן:

In the same mishna in tractate Mikvaot, Rabbi Yehuda says: Strings of wool and strands of hair do not interpose and invalidate the immersion because the water reaches through them.

אמר רב יוסף אמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל הלכה כרבי יהודה בחוטי שער

Rav Yosef said that Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda with regard to strands of hair. However, the halakha is not in accordance with his opinion with regard to wool strings.

אמר ליה אביי הלכה מכלל דפליגי

Abaye said to him: By saying that the halakha is in accordance with Rav Yehuda, by inference the Rabbis disagree with regard to strands of hair. However, no opinion stating that strands of hair constitute an interposition is cited in the mishna.

וכי תימא אי לאו דשמעינן מתנא קמא דאיירי בחוטי שער איהו נמי לא הוה מיירי ודילמא כשם קאמר להו כי היכי דמודיתו לי בחוטי שער אודו לי נמי בחוטי צמר

And if you say that had we not heard from the first tanna that he is speaking of strands of hair, Rabbi Yehuda would also not have spoken about them. Apparently, the first tanna prohibited strands of hair, and Rabbi Yehuda disagreed with him. Nevertheless, it could be explained otherwise. And, perhaps he prefaced what he was saying to the Rabbis with the phrase: Just as. Just as you agree with me that strands of hair do not interpose, agree with me that strings of wool also do not interpose. The fact that he mentioned strands of hair does not indicate a dispute; on the contrary, it is an attempt to establish a consensus with regard to the halakha.

איתמר אמר רב נחמן אמר שמואל מודים חכמים לרבי יהודה בחוטי שער

Indeed, it was stated that Rav Naḥman said that Shmuel said: The Rabbis agree with Rabbi Yehuda with regard to strands of hair.

תניא נמי הכי חוטי צמר חוצצין חוטי שער אין חוצצין רבי יהודה אומר של צמר ושל שער אין חוצצין

This opinion was also taught in a baraita: Strings of wool interpose. Strands of hair do not interpose. Rabbi Yehuda says: Both strings of wool and strands of hair do not interpose.

אמר רב נחמן בר יצחק מתניתין נמי דיקא דקתני יוצאה אשה בחוטי שער בין משלה בין משל חברתה מני אילימא רבי יהודה אפילו חוטי צמר נמי אלא לאו רבנן היא ושמע מינה בחוטי שער לא פליגי שמע מינה:

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: The language of the mishna is also precise, as we learned in a mishna in our chapter: A woman may go out with strands of hair whether they are from her own hair or whether they are from the hair of another. Whose opinion is expressed in this mishna? If you say that it is the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, even strings of wool should also have been permitted. Rather, is it not the opinion of the Rabbis; and conclude from it that with regard to strands of hair, they do not disagree? The Gemara determines: Indeed, conclude from it.

לא בטוטפת: מאי טוטפת אמר רב יוסף חומרתא דקטיפתא

The mishna said that a woman may not go out with the ornament called a totefet. The Gemara asks: What is a totefet? Rav Yosef said: A packet of spices to ward off the evil eye.

אמר ליה אביי תהוי כקמיע מומחה ותשתרי

Abaye said to him: And let the legal status of this packet be like that of an effective amulet, whose effectiveness is proven, and it should be permitted, as an effective amulet may be moved on Shabbat.

אלא אמר רב יהודה משמיה דאביי אפוזיינו תניא נמי הכי יוצאה אשה בסבכה המוזהבת ובטוטפת ובסרביטין הקבועין בה

Rather, Rav Yehuda said in the name of Abaye: A totefet is an appuzainu, an ornament worn on the forehead. This opinion was also taught in a baraita: A woman may go out with a gilded hairnet worn to hold the hair in place, and with the totefet, and with the sarvitin that are fastened to the hairnet, since a woman would not remove her head covering to show her friend those ornaments.

איזו טוטפת ואיזו סרביטין אמר רבי אבהו טוטפת המוקפת לה מאזן לאזן סרביטין המגיעין לה עד לחייה

And they said: Which is a totefet and which is sarvitin? Rabbi Abbahu said: Totefet is that which goes around her forehead from ear to ear. Sarvitin are those attached to the net that reach down to her cheeks.

אמר רב הונא עניות עושין אותן של מיני צבעונין עשירות עושין אותן של כסף ושל זהב:

Rav Huna said: Poor women make these ornaments from different types of colored materials. Wealthy women make them of silver and of gold.

ולא בכבול: אמר רבי ינאי כבול זה איני יודע מהו אי כבלא דעבדא תנן אבל כיפה של צמר שפיר דמי או דילמא כיפה של צמר תנן וכל שכן כבלא דעבדא

We learned in the mishna that a woman may not go out with a kavul. Rabbi Yannai said: This kavul, I do not know what it is. Is it the seal of a slave, who would have a seal on his clothing identifying him as a slave, about which we learned in our mishna that it is prohibited, but a cap of wool that a woman places on her hair, she may well go out wearing it? Or, perhaps we learned in our mishna that going out with a cap of wool is prohibited and all the more so that going out with the seal of a slave is prohibited.

אמר רבי אבהו מסתברא כמאן דאמר כיפה של צמר תנן ותניא נמי הכי יוצאה אשה בכבול ובאיסטמא לחצר רבי שמעון בן אלעזר אומר אף בכבול לרשות הרבים כלל אמר רבי שמעון בן אלעזר כל שהוא למטה מן השבכה יוצאין בו כל שהוא למעלה מן השבכה אין יוצאין בו

Rabbi Abbahu said: It is reasonable to say in accordance with the one who said that we learned about a cap of wool in the mishna. And this opinion was also taught in a baraita: A woman may go out with a kavul and with an istema to the courtyard on Shabbat. Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: She may even go out with the kavul into the public domain. Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar stated a principle: Anything that is worn beneath the hairnet, a woman may go out into the public domain with it, since a woman will not uncover her hair even to show off an ornament while in the public domain. Anything that is worn over the hairnet, like an ornamental hat, a woman may not go out with it. From the context and proximity of the halakha dealing with kavul to the statement of Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar, apparently a kavul is a wool cap worn under the net.

מאי איסטמא אמר רבי אבהו ביזיוני מאי ביזיוני אמר אביי אמר רב כליא פרוחי

Since istema was mentioned in the baraita, the Gemara asks: What is an istema? Rabbi Abbahu said: Istema is a beizyunei. However, Rabbi Abbahu’s explanation employed a term from the Aramaic dialect spoken in Eretz Yisrael, which was not understood in Babylonia. Therefore, they asked there: What is a beizyunei? Abaye said that Rav said: It is a small hat or ribbon used to gather hairs that protrude [kalya paruḥei] from the headdress.

תנו רבנן שלשה דברים נאמרו באיסטמא אין בה משום כלאים ואינה מטמאה בנגעים ואין יוצאין בה לרשות הרבים

The Sages taught in the Tosefta that three things were said with regard to an istema: There is no prohibition of a mixture of diverse kinds, wool and linen, in it. Since it is made of hard felt and not woven together, the prohibition of diverse kinds does not apply to material of that kind. And it does not become impure with the ritual impurity of leprosy. Only woven garments can become impure with leprosy. And women may not go out with it to the public domain on Shabbat.

משום רבי שמעון אמרו אף

In the name of Rabbi Shimon they said: Also,

More Ways to Learn with Hadran

Join Hadran Communities! Connect with women learning in your area.

Scroll To Top