Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

May 2, 2020 | 讞壮 讘讗讬讬专 转砖状驻

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.

  • This month鈥檚 learning is sponsored by Jon and Yael Cohen in memory of Dr. Robert Van Amerongen.聽May his memory be blessed.

Shabbat 57

Today鈥檚 shiur, as well as the whole month of Iyar, is dedicated in memory of Yehuda Aryeh Leib ben Yisachar Dov Barash, Ari Adler, z鈥漧 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?

诪转谞讬壮 讘诪讛 讗砖讛 讬讜爪讗讛 讜讘诪讛 讗讬谞讛 讬讜爪讗讛

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?

诇讗 转爪讗 讗砖讛 诇讗 讘讞讜讟讬 爪诪专 讜诇讗 讘讞讜讟讬 驻砖转谉 讜诇讗 讘专爪讜注讜转 砖讘专讗砖讛 讜诇讗 转讟讘讜诇 讘讛谉 注讚 砖转专驻诐

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.

讜诇讗 讘讟讜讟驻转 讜诇讗 讘住专讘讬讟讬谉 讘讝诪谉 砖讗讬谞谉 转驻讜专讬诐 讜诇讗 讘讻讘讜诇 诇专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐

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.

讜诇讗 讘注讬专 砖诇 讝讛讘 讜诇讗 讘拽讟诇讗 讜诇讗 讘谞讝诪讬诐 讜诇讗 讘讟讘注转 砖讗讬谉 注诇讬讛 讞讜转诐 讜诇讗 讘诪讞讟 砖讗讬谞讛 谞拽讜讘讛

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.

讜讗诐 讬爪讗转 讗讬谞讛 讞讬讬讘转 讞讟讗转:

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.

讙诪壮 讟讘讬诇讛 诪讗谉 讚讻专 砖诪讛

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?

讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讗讘讜讛 诪讛 讟注诐 拽讗诪专 诪讛 讟注诐 诇讗 转爪讗 讗砖讛 诇讗 讘讞讜讟讬 爪诪专 讜诇讗 讘讞讜讟讬 驻砖转谉 诪驻谞讬 砖讗诪专讜 讞讻诪讬诐 讘讞讜诇 诇讗 转讟讘讜诇 讘讛谉 注讚 砖转专驻诐 讜讻讬讜谉 讚讘讞讜诇 诇讗 转讟讘讜诇 讘讛谉 注讚 砖转专驻诐 讘砖讘转 诇讗 转爪讗 讚讬诇诪讗 诪讬转专诪讬 诇讛 讟讘讬诇讛 砖诇 诪爪讜讛 讜砖专讬讗 诇讛讜 讜讗转讬 诇讗转讜讬讬谞讛讜 讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 讘专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐

Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k 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.

讘注讗 诪讬谞讬讛 专讘 讻讛谞讗 诪专讘 转讬讻讬 讞诇讬诇转讗 诪讗讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗专讬讙 拽讗诪专转 讻诇 砖讛讜讗 讗专讬讙 诇讗 讙讝专讜 讗讬转诪专 谞诪讬 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讬讛讜砖注 讻诇 砖讛讜讗 讗专讬讙 诇讗 讙讝专讜

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.

讜讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讬讛讜砖注 讞讝讬谞讗 诇讗讞讜讜转讬 讚诇讗 拽驻讚谉 注诇讬讬讛讜

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.

诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谉 讛讱 诇讬砖谞讗 讜讘讬谉 讛讱 诇讬砖谞讗

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

讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 讚讟谞讬驻谉 诇讛讱 诇讬砖谞讗 讚讗诪专 讻诇 砖讛讜讗 讗专讬讙 诇讗 讙讝专讜 讛谞讬 谞诪讬 讗专讜讙 讜诇讛讱 诇讬砖谞讗 讚讗诪专转 诪砖讜诐 拽驻讬讚讗 讻讬讜谉 讚讟谞讬驻讗 诪拽驻讚 拽驻讚讗 注诇讬讬讛讜

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.

转谞谉 讛转诐 讜讗诇讜 讞讜爪爪讬谉 讘讗讚诐 讞讜讟讬 爪诪专 讜讞讜讟讬 驻砖转谉 讜讛专爪讜注讜转 砖讘专讗砖讬 讛讘谞讜转 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 砖诇 爪诪专 讜砖诇 砖注专 讗讬谉 讞讜爪爪讬谉 诪驻谞讬 砖讛诪讬诐 讘讗讬谉 讘讛谉 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讜讻讜诇谉 讘专讗砖讬 讛讘谞讜转 砖谞讬谞讜

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鈥 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鈥 heads.

诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘 讬讜住祝 诇诪注讜讟讬 诪讗讬 讗讬诇讬诪讗 诇诪注讜讟讬 讚爪讜讗专 讜讚诪讗讬 讗讬诇讬诪讗 诇诪注讜讟讬 讚爪诪专 讛砖转讗 专讱 注诇 讙讘讬 拽砖讛 讞讜爪抓 专讱 注诇 讙讘讬 专讱 诪讬讘注讬讗

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?

讜讗诇讗 诇诪注讜讟讬 讚讞讜讟讬 驻砖转谉 讛砖转讗 拽砖讛 注诇 讙讘讬 拽砖讛 讞讜爪抓 拽砖讛 注诇 讙讘讬 专讱 诪讬讘注讬讗

Rather, say that Rav Huna鈥檚 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?

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 讛讬讬谞讜 讟注诪讗 讚专讘 讛讜谞讗 诇驻讬 砖讗讬谉 讗砖讛 讞讜谞拽转 讗转 注爪诪讛

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.

讗讬转讬讘讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讛讘谞讜转 讬讜爪讗讜转 讘讞讜讟讬谉 砖讘讗讝谞讬讛谉 讗讘诇 诇讗 讘讞讘拽讬谉 砖讘爪讜讗专讬讛谉 讜讗讬 讗诪专转 讗讬谉 讗砖讛 讞讜谞拽转 注爪诪讛 讞讘拽讬谉 砖讘爪讜讗专讬讛谉 讗诪讗讬 诇讗

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.

讗诪专 专讘讬谞讗

Ravina said:

讛讻讗 讘拽讟诇讗 注住拽讬谞谉 讚讗砖讛 讞讜谞拽转 讗转 注爪诪讛 讚谞讬讞讗 诇讛 砖转专讗讛 讻讘注诇转 讘砖专:

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.

专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 砖诇 爪诪专 讜砖诇 砖注专 讗讬谉 讞讜爪爪讬谉 诪驻谞讬 砖讛诪讬诐 讘讗讬谉 讘讛谉:

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.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘讞讜讟讬 砖注专

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.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讛诇讻讛 诪讻诇诇 讚驻诇讬讙讬

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.

讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讗讬 诇讗讜 讚砖诪注讬谞谉 诪转谞讗 拽诪讗 讚讗讬讬专讬 讘讞讜讟讬 砖注专 讗讬讛讜 谞诪讬 诇讗 讛讜讛 诪讬讬专讬 讜讚讬诇诪讗 讻砖诐 拽讗诪专 诇讛讜 讻讬 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讜讚讬转讜 诇讬 讘讞讜讟讬 砖注专 讗讜讚讜 诇讬 谞诪讬 讘讞讜讟讬 爪诪专

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.

讗讬转诪专 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 诪讜讚讬诐 讞讻诪讬诐 诇专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘讞讜讟讬 砖注专

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

转谞讬讗 谞诪讬 讛讻讬 讞讜讟讬 爪诪专 讞讜爪爪讬谉 讞讜讟讬 砖注专 讗讬谉 讞讜爪爪讬谉 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 砖诇 爪诪专 讜砖诇 砖注专 讗讬谉 讞讜爪爪讬谉

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.

讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 诪转谞讬转讬谉 谞诪讬 讚讬拽讗 讚拽转谞讬 讬讜爪讗讛 讗砖讛 讘讞讜讟讬 砖注专 讘讬谉 诪砖诇讛 讘讬谉 诪砖诇 讞讘专转讛 诪谞讬 讗讬诇讬诪讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗驻讬诇讜 讞讜讟讬 爪诪专 谞诪讬 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 专讘谞谉 讛讬讗 讜砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讘讞讜讟讬 砖注专 诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛:

Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k 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.

诇讗 讘讟讜讟驻转: 诪讗讬 讟讜讟驻转 讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 讞讜诪专转讗 讚拽讟讬驻转讗

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.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 转讛讜讬 讻拽诪讬注 诪讜诪讞讛 讜转砖转专讬

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.

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 诪砖诪讬讛 讚讗讘讬讬 讗驻讜讝讬讬谞讜 转谞讬讗 谞诪讬 讛讻讬 讬讜爪讗讛 讗砖讛 讘住讘讻讛 讛诪讜讝讛讘转 讜讘讟讜讟驻转 讜讘住专讘讬讟讬谉 讛拽讘讜注讬谉 讘讛

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.

讗讬讝讜 讟讜讟驻转 讜讗讬讝讜 住专讘讬讟讬谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讛讜 讟讜讟驻转 讛诪讜拽驻转 诇讛 诪讗讝谉 诇讗讝谉 住专讘讬讟讬谉 讛诪讙讬注讬谉 诇讛 注讚 诇讞讬讬讛

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.

讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 注谞讬讜转 注讜砖讬谉 讗讜转谉 砖诇 诪讬谞讬 爪讘注讜谞讬谉 注砖讬专讜转 注讜砖讬谉 讗讜转谉 砖诇 讻住祝 讜砖诇 讝讛讘:

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

讜诇讗 讘讻讘讜诇: 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬谞讗讬 讻讘讜诇 讝讛 讗讬谞讬 讬讜讚注 诪讛讜 讗讬 讻讘诇讗 讚注讘讚讗 转谞谉 讗讘诇 讻讬驻讛 砖诇 爪诪专 砖驻讬专 讚诪讬 讗讜 讚讬诇诪讗 讻讬驻讛 砖诇 爪诪专 转谞谉 讜讻诇 砖讻谉 讻讘诇讗 讚注讘讚讗

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.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讛讜 诪住转讘专讗 讻诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讻讬驻讛 砖诇 爪诪专 转谞谉 讜转谞讬讗 谞诪讬 讛讻讬 讬讜爪讗讛 讗砖讛 讘讻讘讜诇 讜讘讗讬住讟诪讗 诇讞爪专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讗诇注讝专 讗讜诪专 讗祝 讘讻讘讜诇 诇专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讻诇诇 讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讗诇注讝专 讻诇 砖讛讜讗 诇诪讟讛 诪谉 讛砖讘讻讛 讬讜爪讗讬谉 讘讜 讻诇 砖讛讜讗 诇诪注诇讛 诪谉 讛砖讘讻讛 讗讬谉 讬讜爪讗讬谉 讘讜

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.

诪讗讬 讗讬住讟诪讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讛讜 讘讬讝讬讜谞讬 诪讗讬 讘讬讝讬讜谞讬 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讗诪专 专讘 讻诇讬讗 驻专讜讞讬

Since istema was mentioned in the baraita, the Gemara asks: What is an istema? Rabbi Abbahu said: Istema is a beizyunei. However, Rabbi Abbahu鈥檚 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 paru岣i] from the headdress.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 砖诇砖讛 讚讘专讬诐 谞讗诪专讜 讘讗讬住讟诪讗 讗讬谉 讘讛 诪砖讜诐 讻诇讗讬诐 讜讗讬谞讛 诪讟诪讗讛 讘谞讙注讬诐 讜讗讬谉 讬讜爪讗讬谉 讘讛 诇专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐

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.

诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗诪专讜 讗祝

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.

  • This month鈥檚 learning is sponsored by Jon and Yael Cohen in memory of Dr. Robert Van Amerongen.聽May his memory be blessed.

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

诪转谞讬壮 讘诪讛 讗砖讛 讬讜爪讗讛 讜讘诪讛 讗讬谞讛 讬讜爪讗讛

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?

诇讗 转爪讗 讗砖讛 诇讗 讘讞讜讟讬 爪诪专 讜诇讗 讘讞讜讟讬 驻砖转谉 讜诇讗 讘专爪讜注讜转 砖讘专讗砖讛 讜诇讗 转讟讘讜诇 讘讛谉 注讚 砖转专驻诐

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.

讜诇讗 讘讟讜讟驻转 讜诇讗 讘住专讘讬讟讬谉 讘讝诪谉 砖讗讬谞谉 转驻讜专讬诐 讜诇讗 讘讻讘讜诇 诇专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐

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.

讜诇讗 讘注讬专 砖诇 讝讛讘 讜诇讗 讘拽讟诇讗 讜诇讗 讘谞讝诪讬诐 讜诇讗 讘讟讘注转 砖讗讬谉 注诇讬讛 讞讜转诐 讜诇讗 讘诪讞讟 砖讗讬谞讛 谞拽讜讘讛

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.

讜讗诐 讬爪讗转 讗讬谞讛 讞讬讬讘转 讞讟讗转:

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.

讙诪壮 讟讘讬诇讛 诪讗谉 讚讻专 砖诪讛

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?

讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讗讘讜讛 诪讛 讟注诐 拽讗诪专 诪讛 讟注诐 诇讗 转爪讗 讗砖讛 诇讗 讘讞讜讟讬 爪诪专 讜诇讗 讘讞讜讟讬 驻砖转谉 诪驻谞讬 砖讗诪专讜 讞讻诪讬诐 讘讞讜诇 诇讗 转讟讘讜诇 讘讛谉 注讚 砖转专驻诐 讜讻讬讜谉 讚讘讞讜诇 诇讗 转讟讘讜诇 讘讛谉 注讚 砖转专驻诐 讘砖讘转 诇讗 转爪讗 讚讬诇诪讗 诪讬转专诪讬 诇讛 讟讘讬诇讛 砖诇 诪爪讜讛 讜砖专讬讗 诇讛讜 讜讗转讬 诇讗转讜讬讬谞讛讜 讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 讘专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐

Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k 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.

讘注讗 诪讬谞讬讛 专讘 讻讛谞讗 诪专讘 转讬讻讬 讞诇讬诇转讗 诪讗讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗专讬讙 拽讗诪专转 讻诇 砖讛讜讗 讗专讬讙 诇讗 讙讝专讜 讗讬转诪专 谞诪讬 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讬讛讜砖注 讻诇 砖讛讜讗 讗专讬讙 诇讗 讙讝专讜

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.

讜讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讬讛讜砖注 讞讝讬谞讗 诇讗讞讜讜转讬 讚诇讗 拽驻讚谉 注诇讬讬讛讜

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.

诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谉 讛讱 诇讬砖谞讗 讜讘讬谉 讛讱 诇讬砖谞讗

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

讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 讚讟谞讬驻谉 诇讛讱 诇讬砖谞讗 讚讗诪专 讻诇 砖讛讜讗 讗专讬讙 诇讗 讙讝专讜 讛谞讬 谞诪讬 讗专讜讙 讜诇讛讱 诇讬砖谞讗 讚讗诪专转 诪砖讜诐 拽驻讬讚讗 讻讬讜谉 讚讟谞讬驻讗 诪拽驻讚 拽驻讚讗 注诇讬讬讛讜

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.

转谞谉 讛转诐 讜讗诇讜 讞讜爪爪讬谉 讘讗讚诐 讞讜讟讬 爪诪专 讜讞讜讟讬 驻砖转谉 讜讛专爪讜注讜转 砖讘专讗砖讬 讛讘谞讜转 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 砖诇 爪诪专 讜砖诇 砖注专 讗讬谉 讞讜爪爪讬谉 诪驻谞讬 砖讛诪讬诐 讘讗讬谉 讘讛谉 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讜讻讜诇谉 讘专讗砖讬 讛讘谞讜转 砖谞讬谞讜

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鈥 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鈥 heads.

诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘 讬讜住祝 诇诪注讜讟讬 诪讗讬 讗讬诇讬诪讗 诇诪注讜讟讬 讚爪讜讗专 讜讚诪讗讬 讗讬诇讬诪讗 诇诪注讜讟讬 讚爪诪专 讛砖转讗 专讱 注诇 讙讘讬 拽砖讛 讞讜爪抓 专讱 注诇 讙讘讬 专讱 诪讬讘注讬讗

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?

讜讗诇讗 诇诪注讜讟讬 讚讞讜讟讬 驻砖转谉 讛砖转讗 拽砖讛 注诇 讙讘讬 拽砖讛 讞讜爪抓 拽砖讛 注诇 讙讘讬 专讱 诪讬讘注讬讗

Rather, say that Rav Huna鈥檚 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?

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 讛讬讬谞讜 讟注诪讗 讚专讘 讛讜谞讗 诇驻讬 砖讗讬谉 讗砖讛 讞讜谞拽转 讗转 注爪诪讛

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.

讗讬转讬讘讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讛讘谞讜转 讬讜爪讗讜转 讘讞讜讟讬谉 砖讘讗讝谞讬讛谉 讗讘诇 诇讗 讘讞讘拽讬谉 砖讘爪讜讗专讬讛谉 讜讗讬 讗诪专转 讗讬谉 讗砖讛 讞讜谞拽转 注爪诪讛 讞讘拽讬谉 砖讘爪讜讗专讬讛谉 讗诪讗讬 诇讗

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.

讗诪专 专讘讬谞讗

Ravina said:

讛讻讗 讘拽讟诇讗 注住拽讬谞谉 讚讗砖讛 讞讜谞拽转 讗转 注爪诪讛 讚谞讬讞讗 诇讛 砖转专讗讛 讻讘注诇转 讘砖专:

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.

专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 砖诇 爪诪专 讜砖诇 砖注专 讗讬谉 讞讜爪爪讬谉 诪驻谞讬 砖讛诪讬诐 讘讗讬谉 讘讛谉:

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.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘讞讜讟讬 砖注专

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.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讛诇讻讛 诪讻诇诇 讚驻诇讬讙讬

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.

讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讗讬 诇讗讜 讚砖诪注讬谞谉 诪转谞讗 拽诪讗 讚讗讬讬专讬 讘讞讜讟讬 砖注专 讗讬讛讜 谞诪讬 诇讗 讛讜讛 诪讬讬专讬 讜讚讬诇诪讗 讻砖诐 拽讗诪专 诇讛讜 讻讬 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讜讚讬转讜 诇讬 讘讞讜讟讬 砖注专 讗讜讚讜 诇讬 谞诪讬 讘讞讜讟讬 爪诪专

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.

讗讬转诪专 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 诪讜讚讬诐 讞讻诪讬诐 诇专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘讞讜讟讬 砖注专

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

转谞讬讗 谞诪讬 讛讻讬 讞讜讟讬 爪诪专 讞讜爪爪讬谉 讞讜讟讬 砖注专 讗讬谉 讞讜爪爪讬谉 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 砖诇 爪诪专 讜砖诇 砖注专 讗讬谉 讞讜爪爪讬谉

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.

讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 诪转谞讬转讬谉 谞诪讬 讚讬拽讗 讚拽转谞讬 讬讜爪讗讛 讗砖讛 讘讞讜讟讬 砖注专 讘讬谉 诪砖诇讛 讘讬谉 诪砖诇 讞讘专转讛 诪谞讬 讗讬诇讬诪讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗驻讬诇讜 讞讜讟讬 爪诪专 谞诪讬 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 专讘谞谉 讛讬讗 讜砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讘讞讜讟讬 砖注专 诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛:

Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k 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.

诇讗 讘讟讜讟驻转: 诪讗讬 讟讜讟驻转 讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 讞讜诪专转讗 讚拽讟讬驻转讗

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.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 转讛讜讬 讻拽诪讬注 诪讜诪讞讛 讜转砖转专讬

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.

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 诪砖诪讬讛 讚讗讘讬讬 讗驻讜讝讬讬谞讜 转谞讬讗 谞诪讬 讛讻讬 讬讜爪讗讛 讗砖讛 讘住讘讻讛 讛诪讜讝讛讘转 讜讘讟讜讟驻转 讜讘住专讘讬讟讬谉 讛拽讘讜注讬谉 讘讛

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.

讗讬讝讜 讟讜讟驻转 讜讗讬讝讜 住专讘讬讟讬谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讛讜 讟讜讟驻转 讛诪讜拽驻转 诇讛 诪讗讝谉 诇讗讝谉 住专讘讬讟讬谉 讛诪讙讬注讬谉 诇讛 注讚 诇讞讬讬讛

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.

讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 注谞讬讜转 注讜砖讬谉 讗讜转谉 砖诇 诪讬谞讬 爪讘注讜谞讬谉 注砖讬专讜转 注讜砖讬谉 讗讜转谉 砖诇 讻住祝 讜砖诇 讝讛讘:

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

讜诇讗 讘讻讘讜诇: 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬谞讗讬 讻讘讜诇 讝讛 讗讬谞讬 讬讜讚注 诪讛讜 讗讬 讻讘诇讗 讚注讘讚讗 转谞谉 讗讘诇 讻讬驻讛 砖诇 爪诪专 砖驻讬专 讚诪讬 讗讜 讚讬诇诪讗 讻讬驻讛 砖诇 爪诪专 转谞谉 讜讻诇 砖讻谉 讻讘诇讗 讚注讘讚讗

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.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讛讜 诪住转讘专讗 讻诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讻讬驻讛 砖诇 爪诪专 转谞谉 讜转谞讬讗 谞诪讬 讛讻讬 讬讜爪讗讛 讗砖讛 讘讻讘讜诇 讜讘讗讬住讟诪讗 诇讞爪专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讗诇注讝专 讗讜诪专 讗祝 讘讻讘讜诇 诇专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讻诇诇 讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讗诇注讝专 讻诇 砖讛讜讗 诇诪讟讛 诪谉 讛砖讘讻讛 讬讜爪讗讬谉 讘讜 讻诇 砖讛讜讗 诇诪注诇讛 诪谉 讛砖讘讻讛 讗讬谉 讬讜爪讗讬谉 讘讜

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.

诪讗讬 讗讬住讟诪讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讛讜 讘讬讝讬讜谞讬 诪讗讬 讘讬讝讬讜谞讬 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讗诪专 专讘 讻诇讬讗 驻专讜讞讬

Since istema was mentioned in the baraita, the Gemara asks: What is an istema? Rabbi Abbahu said: Istema is a beizyunei. However, Rabbi Abbahu鈥檚 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 paru岣i] from the headdress.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 砖诇砖讛 讚讘专讬诐 谞讗诪专讜 讘讗讬住讟诪讗 讗讬谉 讘讛 诪砖讜诐 讻诇讗讬诐 讜讗讬谞讛 诪讟诪讗讛 讘谞讙注讬诐 讜讗讬谉 讬讜爪讗讬谉 讘讛 诇专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐

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.

诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗诪专讜 讗祝

In the name of Rabbi Shimon they said: Also,

Scroll To Top