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

Today's Daf Yomi

May 4, 2020 | ื™ืณ ื‘ืื™ื™ืจ ืชืฉืดืค

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's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

Shabbat 59

Why is a bell once the clapper is removed still susceptible to impurities – what can it be used for? Several answers are brought. Rabbi Yochanan says it can be used as a cup for a young child. But doesn’t Rabbi Yochanan hold elsewhere that if a utensil can no longer be used for its original purpose, it is no longer susceptible to impurities? The gemara goes through the jewelry mentioned in the mishna and explains what they are, raises arguments regarding each case (if there are) and cases where women may be allowed to where jewelry according to some opinions. For example, prominent women are unlikely to remove jewelry so jewels that are only worn by prominent women may be allowed according to some.

ื”ื•ืื™ืœ ื•ืจืื•ื™ ืœื”ืงื™ืฉื• ืขืœ ื’ื‘ื™ ื—ืจืก

It is considered a vessel since a bell without a clapper is suited to strike on earthenware and produce a sound of similar quality to that produced by a clapper. If so, even when the clapper is removed, the bell may still be used for its original purpose.

ืื™ืชืžืจ ื ืžื™ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ืกื™ ื‘ืจื‘ื™ ื—ื ื™ื ื ื”ื•ืื™ืœ ื•ืจืื•ื™ ืœื”ืงื™ืฉื• ืขืœ ื’ื‘ื™ ื—ืจืก ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ืืžืจ ื”ื•ืื™ืœ ื•ืจืื•ื™ ืœื’ืžืข ื‘ื• ืžื™ื ืœืชื™ื ื•ืง

It was also stated that Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi แธคanina, said: It is considered a vessel, since a bell without a clapper is suited to strike on earthenware. Rabbi Yoแธฅanan said: It is considered a vessel, since it is suited for use to give water to a child to drink.

ื•ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ืœื ื‘ืขื™ ืžืขื™ืŸ ืžืœืื›ื” ืจืืฉื•ื ื” ื•ื”ืชื ื™ื ื•ื›ืœ ื›ืœื™ ืืฉืจ ื™ืฉื‘ ืขืœื™ื• ื•ื’ื•ืณ ื™ื›ื•ืœ ื›ืคื” ืกืื” ื•ื™ืฉื‘ ืขืœื™ื” ื›ืคื” ืชืจืงื‘ ื•ื™ืฉื‘ ืขืœื™ื” ื™ื”ื ื˜ืžื ืชืœืžื•ื“ ืœื•ืžืจ ืืฉืจ ื™ืฉื‘ ืขืœื™ื• ื”ื–ื‘ ืžื™ ืฉืžื™ื•ื—ื“ ืœื™ืฉื™ื‘ื” ื™ืฆื ื–ื” ืฉืื•ืžืจื™ื ืœื• ืขืžื•ื“ ื•ื ืขืฉื” ืžืœืื›ืชื ื•

And with regard to the essence of Rabbi Yoแธฅananโ€™s statement, the Gemara asks: And does Rabbi Yoแธฅanan not require that the vesselโ€™s new usage must be of the same type as the original labor in order for it to retain its ritual impurity after it has undergone change? Wasnโ€™t it taught in a baraita: โ€œEvery bed on which a zav is lying is ritually impure and every vessel on which he is sitting shall be ritually impureโ€ (Leviticus 15:4). I might have thought, based on this verse, that if one overturned a vessel the size of a seโ€™a and sat on it, or overturned a vessel the size of a half-seโ€™a [tarkav] and sat on it, the vessel would become ritually impure. Therefore, the verse states: On which the zav is sitting, i.e., that which is designated for sitting, excluding that vessel with regard to which one says to the zav: Stand and we will perform our labor with the vessel. In that case, because the vessel is primarily used for purposes other than sitting, it does not become ritually impure even when the zav sits on it.

ืจื‘ื™ ืืœืขื–ืจ ืื•ืžืจ ื‘ืžื“ืจืกื•ืช ืื•ืžืจื™ื ืขืžื•ื“ ื•ื ืขืฉื” ืžืœืื›ืชื ื• ื•ืื™ืŸ ืื•ืžืจื™ื ื‘ื˜ืžื ืžืช ืขืžื•ื“ ื•ื ืขืฉื” ืžืœืื›ืชื ื• ื•ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ืืžืจ ืืฃ ืื•ืžืจ ื‘ื˜ืžื ืžืช ืขืžื•ื“ ื•ื ืขืฉื” ืžืœืื›ืชื ื•

There is a dispute between the amoraโ€™im on this matter: Rabbi Elazar says: With regard to ritual impurity imparted by treading [midras], i.e., the halakhot pertaining to a zav or to a menstruating woman who sits or lies down on an object, one states the principle: Stand and we will perform our labor to maintain the purity of the vessel. However, one does not state with regard to one who is ritually impure due to a corpse: Stand and we will perform our labor to maintain the purity of the vessel. In other words, an object that became ritually impure through contact with a corpse and was subsequently broken, since it is possible to use it for some other purpose, it remains a vessel and susceptible to ritual impurity. However, Rabbi Yoแธฅanan said: Even with regard to one who is ritually impure due to a corpse, one states the principle: Stand and we will perform our labor to maintain the purity of the vessel. According to his opinion, a vessel that is no longer suited for its initial use, even though it serves another purpose, is considered broken. Therefore, the bell, since it is no longer suited for ringing, remains ritually pure according to Rabbi Yoแธฅananโ€™s opinion, even though it remains suited for drinking water.

ืื™ืคื•ืš ืงืžื™ื™ืชื ื•ืžืื™ ื—ื–ื™ืช ื“ืืคื›ืช ืงืžื™ื™ืชื ืื™ืคื•ืš ื‘ืชืจื™ื™ืชื

The Gemara answers: Reverse the opinions in the first dispute: It was not Rabbi Yoแธฅanan who gave that reason; it was Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi แธคanina. The Gemara asks: And what did you see that led you to reverse the first? Reverse the opinions of Rabbi Yoแธฅanan and Rabbi Elazar in the latter dispute, and avoid a contradiction in the statements of Rabbi Yoแธฅanan in that way.

ื”ื ืฉืžืขื™ื ืŸ ืœื™ื” ืœืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ื“ื‘ืขื™ ืžืขื™ืŸ ืžืœืื›ื” ืจืืฉื•ื ื” (ื“ืชื ื™ื) ืกื ื“ืœ ืฉืœ ื‘ื”ืžื” ืฉืœ ืžืชื›ืช ื˜ืžื ืœืžืื™ ื—ื–ื™ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืจืื•ื™ ืœืฉืชื•ืช ื‘ื• ืžื™ื ื‘ืžืœื—ืžื” ื•ืจื‘ื™ ื—ื ื™ื ื ืืžืจ ืจืื•ื™ ืœืกื•ืš ื‘ื• ืฉืžืŸ ื‘ืžืœื—ืžื” ื•ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ืืžืจ ื‘ืฉืขื” ืฉื‘ื•ืจื— ืžืŸ ื”ืงืจื‘ ืžื ื™ื—ื• ื‘ืจื’ืœื™ื• ื•ืจืฅ ืขืœ ืงื•ืฆื™ืŸ ื•ืขืœ ื”ื‘ืจืงื ื™ื

The Gemara answers: That is because we learned elsewhere that Rabbi Yoแธฅanan requires that the vesselโ€™s new use will be of the same type as the original labor. His opinion here is consistent with his opinion there. As it was taught in a baraita: The shoe of an animal, if it is made of metal, can become ritually impure. The Gemara asks: For what use by people is it suited? Vessels designated for animal use do not become ritually impure unless they have some use for people. Rav said: It is suited for use as a vessel from which one could drink water in war when there are no other available vessels. And Rabbi แธคanina said: It is suited for use as a vessel from which one could smear oil on his body during a war. And Rabbi Yoแธฅanan said: When he flees from the battlefield he places it on his foot and runs over thorns and the thistles. Apparently, the only use for the shoe of an animal that would render it capable of becoming ritually impure when used by a person is use of the same type as the original labor.

ืžืื™ ื‘ื™ืŸ ืจื‘ ืœืจื‘ื™ ื—ื ื™ื ื ืื™ื›ื ื‘ื™ื ื™ื™ื”ื• ื“ืžืื™ืก

The Gemara asks parenthetically: What is the practical difference between the explanation of Rav and that of Rabbi แธคanina? The Gemara answers: There is a practical difference between them in a case where the sandal is repulsive and dirty. In Ravโ€™s opinion, since one would not drink water from it, it cannot become ritually impure. According to Rabbi แธคanina, since one could still use it to spread oil on his body, it can become ritually impure.

ื‘ื™ืŸ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ืœืจื‘ื™ ื—ื ื™ื ื ืื™ื›ื ื‘ื™ื ื™ื™ื”ื• ื“ื™ืงื™ืจ:

What is the practical difference between the explanation of Rabbi Yoแธฅanan and that of Rabbi แธคanina? There is a practical difference between them in a case where the shoe is heavy. It is suited for spreading oil; it is not suited for one to place on his foot. Therefore, it cannot become ritually impure according to Rabbi Yoแธฅanan.

ื•ืœื ื‘ืขื™ืจ ืฉืœ ื–ื”ื‘: ืžืื™ ื‘ืขื™ืจ ืฉืœ ื–ื”ื‘ ืจื‘ื” ื‘ืจ ื‘ืจ ื—ื ื” ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ื™ืจื•ืฉืœื™ื ื“ื“ื”ื‘ื

We learned in the mishna: And neither may a woman go out on Shabbat to the public domain with a city of gold. The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of: With a city of gold? Rabba bar bar แธคana said that Rabbi Yoแธฅanan said: Jerusalem of Gold, a gold tiara engraved with a depiction of the city of Jerusalem,

ื›ื“ืขื‘ื“ ืœื™ื” ืจื‘ื™ ืขืงื™ื‘ื ืœื“ื‘ื™ืชื”ื•

like the one that Rabbi Akiva made for his wife.

ืชื ื• ืจื‘ื ืŸ ืœื ืชืฆื ืืฉื” ื‘ืขื™ืจ ืฉืœ ื–ื”ื‘ ื•ืื ื™ืฆืชื” ื—ื™ื™ื‘ืช ื—ื˜ืืช ื“ื‘ืจื™ ืจื‘ื™ ืžืื™ืจ ื•ื—ื›ืžื™ื ืื•ืžืจื™ื ืœื ืชืฆื ื•ืื ื™ืฆืชื” ืคื˜ื•ืจื” ืจื‘ื™ ืืœื™ืขื–ืจ ืื•ืžืจ ื™ื•ืฆืื” ืืฉื” ื‘ืขื™ืจ ืฉืœ ื–ื”ื‘ ืœื›ืชื—ืœื”

And on this subject, the Sages taught in the Tosefta: A woman may not go out into the public domain on Shabbat with a city of gold ornament. And if she went out with it into the public domain she is liable to bring a sin-offering; that is the statement of Rabbi Meir. And the Rabbis say: She may not go out with it ab initio, and if she went out she is exempt. And Rabbi Eliezer says: A woman may go out with a city of gold ornament ab initio.

ื‘ืžืื™ ืงืžื™ืคืœื’ื™ ืจื‘ื™ ืžืื™ืจ ืกื‘ืจ ืžืฉื•ื™ ื”ื•ื ื•ืจื‘ื ืŸ ืกื‘ืจื™ ืชื›ืฉื™ื˜ ื”ื•ื ื“ื™ืœืžื ืฉืœืคื ื•ืžื—ื•ื™ื ืœื™ื” ื•ืืชื™ื ืœืืชื•ื™ื™ ื•ืจื‘ื™ ืืœื™ืขื–ืจ ืกื‘ืจ ืžืืŸ ื“ืจื›ื” ืœืžื™ืคืง ื‘ืขื™ืจ ืฉืœ ื–ื”ื‘ ืืฉื” ื—ืฉื•ื‘ื” ื•ืืฉื” ื—ืฉื•ื‘ื” ืœื ืžืฉืœืคื ื•ืžื—ื•ื™ื

The Gemara explains: With regard to what principle do they disagree? Rabbi Meir holds that it is considered a burden and not an ornament, and one who carries a burden into the public domain is liable to bring a sin-offering. And the Rabbis hold that it is an ornament. Why, then, did they prohibit going out into the public domain wearing it? They are concerned lest she remove it, and show it to another, and come to carry it in the public domain. And Rabbi Eliezer holds: Whose manner is it to go out with a city of gold ornament? Only an important woman, and in that case there is no concern, as an important woman does not remove ornaments and show them to others.

ื›ืœื™ืœื ืจื‘ ืืกืจ ื•ืฉืžื•ืืœ ืฉืจื™

After discussing going out into the public domain on Shabbat with a city of gold ornament, the Gemara discusses other ornaments. There is a dispute among amoraโ€™im with regard to a kelila, which is a tiara-like ornament. Rav prohibited going out with it, and Shmuel permitted doing so.

ื“ืื ื™ืกื›ื ื›ื•ืœื™ ืขืœืžื ืœื ืคืœื™ื’ื™ ื“ืืกื•ืจ ื›ื™ ืคืœื™ื’ื™ ื“ืืจื•ืงืชื ืžืจ ืกื‘ืจ ืื ื™ืกื›ื ืขืงืจ ื•ืžืจ ืกื‘ืจ ืืจื•ืงืชื ืขืงืจ

The Gemara sets the parameters of the disagreement: With a kelila made of metal, everyone agrees that it is prohibited to go out into the public domain. Where they disagree is in the case of a woven fabric inlaid with metal. One Sage, Rav, holds that in that type of ornament the metal is the primary element, and it is prohibited. And one Sage, Shmuel, holds that the woven fabric is the primary element, and it is consequently permitted.

ืจื‘ ืืฉื™ ืžืชื ื™ ืœืงื•ืœื ื“ืืจื•ืงืชื ื“ื›ื•ืœื™ ืขืœืžื ืœื ืคืœื™ื’ื™ ื“ืฉืจื™ ื›ื™ ืคืœื™ื’ื™ ื“ืื ื™ืกื›ื ืžืจ ืกื‘ืจ ื“ื™ืœืžื ืฉืœืคื ื•ืžื—ื•ื™ื ื•ืืชื™ ืœืืชื•ื™ื™ ื•ืžืจ ืกื‘ืจ ืžืืŸ ื“ืจื›ื” ืœืžื™ืคืง ื‘ื›ืœื™ืœื ืืฉื” ื—ืฉื•ื‘ื” ื•ืืฉื” ื—ืฉื•ื‘ื” ืœื ืฉืœืคื ื•ืžื—ื•ื™ื

Rav Ashi taught this disagreement with a lenient interpretation, as he said: With a kelila of woven fabric, everyone agrees that it is permitted to go out into the public domain. Where they disagree is in the case of a metal ornament. One Sage, Rav, holds that it is prohibited because there is concern lest she remove it, and show it to another, and come to carry it in the public domain. And one Sage, Shmuel, holds that it is permitted. Whose manner is to go out with a kelila ornament? Only an important woman; and an important woman does not remove ornaments and show them to others.

ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืจื‘ ืฉืžื•ืืœ ื‘ืจ ื‘ืจ ื—ื ื” ืœืจื‘ ื™ื•ืกืฃ ื‘ืคืจื•ืฉ ืืžืจืช ืœืŸ ืžืฉืžื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ ื›ืœื™ืœื ืฉืจื™

On the same topic, Rav Shmuel bar bar แธคana said to Rav Yosef who, due to illness, forgot his learning: You explicitly said to us in the name of Rav: With regard to a kelila, it is permitted to go out into the public domain on Shabbat.

ืืžืจื• ืœื™ื” ืœืจื‘ ืืชื ื’ื‘ืจื ืจื‘ื” ืืจื™ื›ื ืœื ื”ืจื“ืขื ื•ืžื˜ืœืข ื•ื“ืจืฉ ื›ืœื™ืœื ืฉืจื™ ืืžืจ ืžืืŸ ื’ื‘ืจื ืจื‘ื” ืืจื™ื›ื [ื“ืื™ื˜ืœืข] ืœื•ื™ ืฉืžืข ืžื™ื ื” ื ื— ื ืคืฉื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ื™ ืืคืก ื•ื™ืชื™ื‘ ืจื‘ื™ ื—ื ื™ื ื ื‘ืจื™ืฉื ื•ืœื ื”ื•ื” ืœื™ื” ืื™ื ื™ืฉ ืœืœื•ื™ ืœืžื™ืชื‘ ื’ื‘ื™ื” ื•ืงืืชื™ ืœื”ื›ื

The Gemara relates that one day they said to Rav: A great, tall man came to Nehardeโ€™a and he was limping. And he taught: With a kelila, it is permitted to go out into the public domain on Shabbat. Rav said: Who is a great, tall man who limps? Levi. Conclude from this that Rabbi Afes passed away and Rabbi แธคanina is sitting at the head of the yeshiva in Eretz Yisrael in his place. And, consequently, Levi had no one before whom to sit and study and he came here. As long as Rabbi Afes headed the yeshiva, Rabbi แธคanina would sit outside the study hall. Entering the study hall would indicate that he accepted the authority of Rabbi Afes. Rabbi แธคanina, who was a great man, refused to do so. In deference to Rabbi แธคanina, Levi would sit with him as a colleague outside the study hall. When Levi arrived from Eretz Yisrael, it was clear that Rabbi Afes must have died. Levi, who considered himself Rabbi แธคaninaโ€™s equal in terms of both scholarship and age, did not want to defer to Rabbi แธคaninaโ€™s authority and decided to go to elsewhere, to Babylonia.

ื•ื“ื™ืœืžื ื ื— ื ืคืฉื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ื™ ื—ื ื™ื ื ื•ืจื‘ื™ ืืคืก ื›ื“ืงืื™ ืงืื™ ื•ืœื ื”ื•ื” ืœื™ื” ืื™ื ื™ืฉ ืœืœื•ื™ ืœืžื™ืชื‘ ื’ื‘ื™ื” ื•ืงืืชื™ ืœื”ื›ื ืื ืื™ืชื ื“ืจื‘ื™ ื—ื ื™ื ื ืฉื›ื™ื‘ ืœื•ื™ ืœืจื‘ื™ ืืคืก ืžื™ื›ืฃ ื”ื•ื” ื›ื™ื™ืฃ ืœื™ื” ื•ืชื• ื“ืจื‘ื™ ื—ื ื™ื ื ืœื ืกื’ื™ ื“ืœื ืžืœื™ืš ื“ื›ื™ ื”ื•ื” ืงื ื ื™ื—ื ื ืคืฉื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ื™ ืืžืจ ื—ื ื™ื ื ื‘ืจื‘ื™ ื—ืžื ื™ืชื™ื‘ ื‘ืจืืฉ ื•ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื‘ื”ื• ื‘ืฆื“ื™ืงื™ื ื•ืชื’ื–ืจ ืืžืจ ื•ื™ืงื ืœืš ื•ื’ื•ืณ

The Gemara asks: How did Rav arrive at that particular conclusion? And perhaps Rabbi แธคanina died and Rabbi Afes remained standing in his position at the head of the yeshiva as he stood previously; and Levi had no one with whom to sit outside the study hall, and that is why he came here? The Gemara answers that that could not be the case for two reasons. First, if it were so, that Rabbi แธคanina died, Levi would have been subject to the authority of Rabbi Afes. It was only in deference to Rabbi แธคanina that Levi did not enter the study hall. And furthermore, it could not be that Rabbi แธคanina died and did not reign as head of the yeshiva, as when Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi died, he said in his dying testament: แธคanina, son of Rabbi แธคama, shall sit at the head of the yeshiva. And of the righteous it is written: โ€œYou will decree a saying and it will be established for you, and the light will shine on your waysโ€ (Job 22:28). Since the statement that Rabbi แธคanina will serve at the head of the yeshiva crossed the lips of a righteous person, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, it is inconceivable that it would not have been realized.

ื“ืจืฉ ืœื•ื™ ื‘ื ื”ืจื“ืขื ื›ืœื™ืœื ืฉืจื™ ื ืคื™ืง ืขืฉืจื™ืŸ ื•ืืจื‘ืข ื›ืœื™ืœื™ ืžื›ื•ืœื” ื ื”ืจื“ืขื ื“ืจืฉ ืจื‘ื” ื‘ืจ ืื‘ื•ื” ื‘ืžื—ื•ื–ื ื›ืœื™ืœื ืฉืจื™ ื•ื ืคืงื• ืชืžื ื™ ืกืจื™ ื›ืœื™ืœื™ ืžื—ื“ื ืžื‘ื•ืื”

The Gemara returns to the subject of kelila. When Levi taught in Nehardeโ€™a that with the kelila ornament, one is permitted to go out into the public domain on Shabbat, twenty-four women wearing the kelila ornament went out into the public domain from all of Nehardeโ€™a. When Rabba bar Avuh taught in Meแธฅoza that the kelila ornament is permitted, eighteen women wearing the kelila ornament went out from one alleyway. Meแธฅoza was a wealthy mercantile city, and many women there owned precious jewelry.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืฉืžื•ืืœ ืงืžืจื ืฉืจื™ ืื™ื›ื ื“ืืžืจื™ ื“ืืจื•ืงืชื ื•ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืกืคืจื ืžื™ื“ื™ ื“ื”ื•ื” ืื˜ืœื™ืช ืžื•ื–ื”ื‘ืช

Rav Yehuda said that Rav Shmuel said: With a precious gilded belt [kamra], a woman is permitted to go out into the public domain on Shabbat. Some say that he was referring to a belt made of woven fabric and inlaid with gold. And Rav Safra said: It is permitted just as it is permitted in the case of a gilded cloak.

ื•ืื™ื›ื ื“ืืžืจื™ ื“ืื ื™ืกื›ื ื•ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืกืคืจื ืžื™ื“ื™ ื“ื”ื•ื” ืืื‘ื ื˜ ืฉืœ ืžืœื›ื™ื

And some say that it is referring to a belt made entirely of metal. And Rav Safra said: It is permitted just as it is permitted to go out into the public domain on Shabbat with the belt of kings made entirely of gold.

ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืจื‘ื™ื ื ืœืจื‘ ืืฉื™ ืงืžืจื ืขื™ืœื•ื™ ื”ืžื™ื™ื ื ืžืื™ ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืชืจื™ ื”ืžื™ื™ื ื™ ืงืืžืจืช

Ravina said to Rav Ashi: With regard to going out with a gilded belt over another belt [hemyana], what is the halakha? He said to him: Two belts you said; it is certainly uncommon to wear two belts. Therefore, one of them is a burden.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืืฉื™ ื”ืื™ ืจืกื•ืงื ืื™ ืื™ืช ืœื™ื” ืžืคืจื—ื™ื™ืชื ืฉืจื™ ื•ืื™ ืœื ืืกื™ืจ:

Rav Ashi said: This short cloak; if it has short straps with which to tie it, it is permitted to go out with it, and if not, it is prohibited.

ื•ืœื ื‘ืงื˜ืœื: ืžืื™ ืงื˜ืœื ืžื ืงื˜ื ืคืืจื™: ื ื–ืžื™ื: ื ื–ืžื™ ื”ืืฃ:

We learned in the mishna: And a woman may not go out on Shabbat with a katla. The Gemara explains: What is a katla? A type of small bib hung from the neck. The nezamim mentioned in the mishna with which a woman may not go out on Shabbat refer to nose rings, not earrings.

ื•ืœื ื‘ื˜ื‘ืขืช ืฉืื™ืŸ ืขืœื™ื” ื—ื•ืชื: ื”ื ื™ืฉ ืขืœื™ื” ื—ื•ืชื ื—ื™ื™ื‘ืช ืืœืžื ืœืื• ืชื›ืฉื™ื˜ ื”ื•ื

We learned in the mishna: Nor with a ring that has no seal on it. By inference: If it does have a seal on it, she is liable to bring a sin-offering. She is only exempt from bringing a sacrifice when she goes out with a ring that does not have a seal on it, which is an ornament; however, a ring with a seal on it, typically used by men for sealing documents, is considered a burden for a woman on Shabbat. Apparently, that ring is not an ornament.

ื•ืจืžื™ื ื”ื• ืชื›ืฉื™ื˜ื™ ื ืฉื™ื ื˜ืžืื™ื ื•ืืœื• ื”ืŸ ืชื›ืฉื™ื˜ื™ ื ืฉื™ื ืงื˜ืœืื•ืช ื ื–ืžื™ื ื•ื˜ื‘ืขื•ืช ื•ื˜ื‘ืขืช ื‘ื™ืŸ ืฉื™ืฉ ืขืœื™ื” ื—ื•ืชื ื‘ื™ืŸ ืฉืื™ืŸ ืขืœื™ื” ื—ื•ืชื ื•ื ื–ืžื™ ื”ืืฃ

The Gemara raises a contradiction from a mishna in tractate Kelim: Womenโ€™s ornaments can become ritually impure. And these are womenโ€™s ornaments: Bibs; earrings; and rings; and a ring whether it has a seal on it or whether it does not have a seal on it; and nose rings. Apparently, even a ring that has a seal on it is considered a womanโ€™s ornament.

ื•ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื–ื™ืจื ืœื ืงืฉื™ื ื”ื ืจื‘ื™ ื ื—ืžื™ื” ื”ื ืจื‘ื ืŸ

And Rabbi Zeira said: This is not difficult. Rather, this ruling in our mishna, which distinguishes between a ring with a seal and a ring without a seal, is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Neแธฅemya; that ruling in the mishna in tractate Kelim, which does not distinguish between rings, is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis.

ื“ืชื ื™ื ื”ื™ื ืฉืœ ืžืชื›ืช ื•ื—ื•ืชืžื” ืฉืœ ืืœืžื•ื’ ื˜ืžืื” ื”ื™ื ืฉืœ ืืœืžื•ื’ ื•ื—ื•ืชืžื” ืฉืœ ืžืชื›ืช ื˜ื”ื•ืจื” ื•ืจื‘ื™ ื ื—ืžื™ื” ืžื˜ืžื ืฉื”ื™ื” ืจื‘ื™ ื ื—ืžื™ื” ืื•ืžืจ ื‘ื˜ื‘ืขืช ื”ืœืš ืื—ืจ ื—ื•ืชืžื” ื‘ืขื•ืœ ื”ืœืš ืื—ืจ ืกืžืœื•ื ื™ื•

As it was taught in a baraita: If the ring were made of metal and its seal was made of coral, it can become ritually impure because the primary component of the ring is metal, a material that can become ritually impure. If the ring were made of coral and its seal of metal, it is ritually pure and cannot become ritually impure. Rabbi Neแธฅemya deems it ritually impure, as Rabbi Neแธฅemya would say: With regard to a ring, follow its seal; if the seal were made of material that can become ritually impure, the entire ring can become ritually impure, and if it were made of material that cannot become ritually impure, the entire ring remains pure. The same is true with regard to a yoke of an animal: Follow its rods. Rods are placed in the yoke to fasten it to the animal; the component material of the rods determines whether or not the entire yoke can become ritually impure.

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's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

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 59: The Queen of England Does Not Show Off Her Crown

The city of gold, which is to say, more ornaments, to be worn (or not) in the public domain. Rabbi...

Shabbat 59

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Shabbat 59

ื”ื•ืื™ืœ ื•ืจืื•ื™ ืœื”ืงื™ืฉื• ืขืœ ื’ื‘ื™ ื—ืจืก

It is considered a vessel since a bell without a clapper is suited to strike on earthenware and produce a sound of similar quality to that produced by a clapper. If so, even when the clapper is removed, the bell may still be used for its original purpose.

ืื™ืชืžืจ ื ืžื™ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ืกื™ ื‘ืจื‘ื™ ื—ื ื™ื ื ื”ื•ืื™ืœ ื•ืจืื•ื™ ืœื”ืงื™ืฉื• ืขืœ ื’ื‘ื™ ื—ืจืก ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ืืžืจ ื”ื•ืื™ืœ ื•ืจืื•ื™ ืœื’ืžืข ื‘ื• ืžื™ื ืœืชื™ื ื•ืง

It was also stated that Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi แธคanina, said: It is considered a vessel, since a bell without a clapper is suited to strike on earthenware. Rabbi Yoแธฅanan said: It is considered a vessel, since it is suited for use to give water to a child to drink.

ื•ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ืœื ื‘ืขื™ ืžืขื™ืŸ ืžืœืื›ื” ืจืืฉื•ื ื” ื•ื”ืชื ื™ื ื•ื›ืœ ื›ืœื™ ืืฉืจ ื™ืฉื‘ ืขืœื™ื• ื•ื’ื•ืณ ื™ื›ื•ืœ ื›ืคื” ืกืื” ื•ื™ืฉื‘ ืขืœื™ื” ื›ืคื” ืชืจืงื‘ ื•ื™ืฉื‘ ืขืœื™ื” ื™ื”ื ื˜ืžื ืชืœืžื•ื“ ืœื•ืžืจ ืืฉืจ ื™ืฉื‘ ืขืœื™ื• ื”ื–ื‘ ืžื™ ืฉืžื™ื•ื—ื“ ืœื™ืฉื™ื‘ื” ื™ืฆื ื–ื” ืฉืื•ืžืจื™ื ืœื• ืขืžื•ื“ ื•ื ืขืฉื” ืžืœืื›ืชื ื•

And with regard to the essence of Rabbi Yoแธฅananโ€™s statement, the Gemara asks: And does Rabbi Yoแธฅanan not require that the vesselโ€™s new usage must be of the same type as the original labor in order for it to retain its ritual impurity after it has undergone change? Wasnโ€™t it taught in a baraita: โ€œEvery bed on which a zav is lying is ritually impure and every vessel on which he is sitting shall be ritually impureโ€ (Leviticus 15:4). I might have thought, based on this verse, that if one overturned a vessel the size of a seโ€™a and sat on it, or overturned a vessel the size of a half-seโ€™a [tarkav] and sat on it, the vessel would become ritually impure. Therefore, the verse states: On which the zav is sitting, i.e., that which is designated for sitting, excluding that vessel with regard to which one says to the zav: Stand and we will perform our labor with the vessel. In that case, because the vessel is primarily used for purposes other than sitting, it does not become ritually impure even when the zav sits on it.

ืจื‘ื™ ืืœืขื–ืจ ืื•ืžืจ ื‘ืžื“ืจืกื•ืช ืื•ืžืจื™ื ืขืžื•ื“ ื•ื ืขืฉื” ืžืœืื›ืชื ื• ื•ืื™ืŸ ืื•ืžืจื™ื ื‘ื˜ืžื ืžืช ืขืžื•ื“ ื•ื ืขืฉื” ืžืœืื›ืชื ื• ื•ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ืืžืจ ืืฃ ืื•ืžืจ ื‘ื˜ืžื ืžืช ืขืžื•ื“ ื•ื ืขืฉื” ืžืœืื›ืชื ื•

There is a dispute between the amoraโ€™im on this matter: Rabbi Elazar says: With regard to ritual impurity imparted by treading [midras], i.e., the halakhot pertaining to a zav or to a menstruating woman who sits or lies down on an object, one states the principle: Stand and we will perform our labor to maintain the purity of the vessel. However, one does not state with regard to one who is ritually impure due to a corpse: Stand and we will perform our labor to maintain the purity of the vessel. In other words, an object that became ritually impure through contact with a corpse and was subsequently broken, since it is possible to use it for some other purpose, it remains a vessel and susceptible to ritual impurity. However, Rabbi Yoแธฅanan said: Even with regard to one who is ritually impure due to a corpse, one states the principle: Stand and we will perform our labor to maintain the purity of the vessel. According to his opinion, a vessel that is no longer suited for its initial use, even though it serves another purpose, is considered broken. Therefore, the bell, since it is no longer suited for ringing, remains ritually pure according to Rabbi Yoแธฅananโ€™s opinion, even though it remains suited for drinking water.

ืื™ืคื•ืš ืงืžื™ื™ืชื ื•ืžืื™ ื—ื–ื™ืช ื“ืืคื›ืช ืงืžื™ื™ืชื ืื™ืคื•ืš ื‘ืชืจื™ื™ืชื

The Gemara answers: Reverse the opinions in the first dispute: It was not Rabbi Yoแธฅanan who gave that reason; it was Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi แธคanina. The Gemara asks: And what did you see that led you to reverse the first? Reverse the opinions of Rabbi Yoแธฅanan and Rabbi Elazar in the latter dispute, and avoid a contradiction in the statements of Rabbi Yoแธฅanan in that way.

ื”ื ืฉืžืขื™ื ืŸ ืœื™ื” ืœืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ื“ื‘ืขื™ ืžืขื™ืŸ ืžืœืื›ื” ืจืืฉื•ื ื” (ื“ืชื ื™ื) ืกื ื“ืœ ืฉืœ ื‘ื”ืžื” ืฉืœ ืžืชื›ืช ื˜ืžื ืœืžืื™ ื—ื–ื™ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืจืื•ื™ ืœืฉืชื•ืช ื‘ื• ืžื™ื ื‘ืžืœื—ืžื” ื•ืจื‘ื™ ื—ื ื™ื ื ืืžืจ ืจืื•ื™ ืœืกื•ืš ื‘ื• ืฉืžืŸ ื‘ืžืœื—ืžื” ื•ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ืืžืจ ื‘ืฉืขื” ืฉื‘ื•ืจื— ืžืŸ ื”ืงืจื‘ ืžื ื™ื—ื• ื‘ืจื’ืœื™ื• ื•ืจืฅ ืขืœ ืงื•ืฆื™ืŸ ื•ืขืœ ื”ื‘ืจืงื ื™ื

The Gemara answers: That is because we learned elsewhere that Rabbi Yoแธฅanan requires that the vesselโ€™s new use will be of the same type as the original labor. His opinion here is consistent with his opinion there. As it was taught in a baraita: The shoe of an animal, if it is made of metal, can become ritually impure. The Gemara asks: For what use by people is it suited? Vessels designated for animal use do not become ritually impure unless they have some use for people. Rav said: It is suited for use as a vessel from which one could drink water in war when there are no other available vessels. And Rabbi แธคanina said: It is suited for use as a vessel from which one could smear oil on his body during a war. And Rabbi Yoแธฅanan said: When he flees from the battlefield he places it on his foot and runs over thorns and the thistles. Apparently, the only use for the shoe of an animal that would render it capable of becoming ritually impure when used by a person is use of the same type as the original labor.

ืžืื™ ื‘ื™ืŸ ืจื‘ ืœืจื‘ื™ ื—ื ื™ื ื ืื™ื›ื ื‘ื™ื ื™ื™ื”ื• ื“ืžืื™ืก

The Gemara asks parenthetically: What is the practical difference between the explanation of Rav and that of Rabbi แธคanina? The Gemara answers: There is a practical difference between them in a case where the sandal is repulsive and dirty. In Ravโ€™s opinion, since one would not drink water from it, it cannot become ritually impure. According to Rabbi แธคanina, since one could still use it to spread oil on his body, it can become ritually impure.

ื‘ื™ืŸ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ืœืจื‘ื™ ื—ื ื™ื ื ืื™ื›ื ื‘ื™ื ื™ื™ื”ื• ื“ื™ืงื™ืจ:

What is the practical difference between the explanation of Rabbi Yoแธฅanan and that of Rabbi แธคanina? There is a practical difference between them in a case where the shoe is heavy. It is suited for spreading oil; it is not suited for one to place on his foot. Therefore, it cannot become ritually impure according to Rabbi Yoแธฅanan.

ื•ืœื ื‘ืขื™ืจ ืฉืœ ื–ื”ื‘: ืžืื™ ื‘ืขื™ืจ ืฉืœ ื–ื”ื‘ ืจื‘ื” ื‘ืจ ื‘ืจ ื—ื ื” ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ื™ืจื•ืฉืœื™ื ื“ื“ื”ื‘ื

We learned in the mishna: And neither may a woman go out on Shabbat to the public domain with a city of gold. The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of: With a city of gold? Rabba bar bar แธคana said that Rabbi Yoแธฅanan said: Jerusalem of Gold, a gold tiara engraved with a depiction of the city of Jerusalem,

ื›ื“ืขื‘ื“ ืœื™ื” ืจื‘ื™ ืขืงื™ื‘ื ืœื“ื‘ื™ืชื”ื•

like the one that Rabbi Akiva made for his wife.

ืชื ื• ืจื‘ื ืŸ ืœื ืชืฆื ืืฉื” ื‘ืขื™ืจ ืฉืœ ื–ื”ื‘ ื•ืื ื™ืฆืชื” ื—ื™ื™ื‘ืช ื—ื˜ืืช ื“ื‘ืจื™ ืจื‘ื™ ืžืื™ืจ ื•ื—ื›ืžื™ื ืื•ืžืจื™ื ืœื ืชืฆื ื•ืื ื™ืฆืชื” ืคื˜ื•ืจื” ืจื‘ื™ ืืœื™ืขื–ืจ ืื•ืžืจ ื™ื•ืฆืื” ืืฉื” ื‘ืขื™ืจ ืฉืœ ื–ื”ื‘ ืœื›ืชื—ืœื”

And on this subject, the Sages taught in the Tosefta: A woman may not go out into the public domain on Shabbat with a city of gold ornament. And if she went out with it into the public domain she is liable to bring a sin-offering; that is the statement of Rabbi Meir. And the Rabbis say: She may not go out with it ab initio, and if she went out she is exempt. And Rabbi Eliezer says: A woman may go out with a city of gold ornament ab initio.

ื‘ืžืื™ ืงืžื™ืคืœื’ื™ ืจื‘ื™ ืžืื™ืจ ืกื‘ืจ ืžืฉื•ื™ ื”ื•ื ื•ืจื‘ื ืŸ ืกื‘ืจื™ ืชื›ืฉื™ื˜ ื”ื•ื ื“ื™ืœืžื ืฉืœืคื ื•ืžื—ื•ื™ื ืœื™ื” ื•ืืชื™ื ืœืืชื•ื™ื™ ื•ืจื‘ื™ ืืœื™ืขื–ืจ ืกื‘ืจ ืžืืŸ ื“ืจื›ื” ืœืžื™ืคืง ื‘ืขื™ืจ ืฉืœ ื–ื”ื‘ ืืฉื” ื—ืฉื•ื‘ื” ื•ืืฉื” ื—ืฉื•ื‘ื” ืœื ืžืฉืœืคื ื•ืžื—ื•ื™ื

The Gemara explains: With regard to what principle do they disagree? Rabbi Meir holds that it is considered a burden and not an ornament, and one who carries a burden into the public domain is liable to bring a sin-offering. And the Rabbis hold that it is an ornament. Why, then, did they prohibit going out into the public domain wearing it? They are concerned lest she remove it, and show it to another, and come to carry it in the public domain. And Rabbi Eliezer holds: Whose manner is it to go out with a city of gold ornament? Only an important woman, and in that case there is no concern, as an important woman does not remove ornaments and show them to others.

ื›ืœื™ืœื ืจื‘ ืืกืจ ื•ืฉืžื•ืืœ ืฉืจื™

After discussing going out into the public domain on Shabbat with a city of gold ornament, the Gemara discusses other ornaments. There is a dispute among amoraโ€™im with regard to a kelila, which is a tiara-like ornament. Rav prohibited going out with it, and Shmuel permitted doing so.

ื“ืื ื™ืกื›ื ื›ื•ืœื™ ืขืœืžื ืœื ืคืœื™ื’ื™ ื“ืืกื•ืจ ื›ื™ ืคืœื™ื’ื™ ื“ืืจื•ืงืชื ืžืจ ืกื‘ืจ ืื ื™ืกื›ื ืขืงืจ ื•ืžืจ ืกื‘ืจ ืืจื•ืงืชื ืขืงืจ

The Gemara sets the parameters of the disagreement: With a kelila made of metal, everyone agrees that it is prohibited to go out into the public domain. Where they disagree is in the case of a woven fabric inlaid with metal. One Sage, Rav, holds that in that type of ornament the metal is the primary element, and it is prohibited. And one Sage, Shmuel, holds that the woven fabric is the primary element, and it is consequently permitted.

ืจื‘ ืืฉื™ ืžืชื ื™ ืœืงื•ืœื ื“ืืจื•ืงืชื ื“ื›ื•ืœื™ ืขืœืžื ืœื ืคืœื™ื’ื™ ื“ืฉืจื™ ื›ื™ ืคืœื™ื’ื™ ื“ืื ื™ืกื›ื ืžืจ ืกื‘ืจ ื“ื™ืœืžื ืฉืœืคื ื•ืžื—ื•ื™ื ื•ืืชื™ ืœืืชื•ื™ื™ ื•ืžืจ ืกื‘ืจ ืžืืŸ ื“ืจื›ื” ืœืžื™ืคืง ื‘ื›ืœื™ืœื ืืฉื” ื—ืฉื•ื‘ื” ื•ืืฉื” ื—ืฉื•ื‘ื” ืœื ืฉืœืคื ื•ืžื—ื•ื™ื

Rav Ashi taught this disagreement with a lenient interpretation, as he said: With a kelila of woven fabric, everyone agrees that it is permitted to go out into the public domain. Where they disagree is in the case of a metal ornament. One Sage, Rav, holds that it is prohibited because there is concern lest she remove it, and show it to another, and come to carry it in the public domain. And one Sage, Shmuel, holds that it is permitted. Whose manner is to go out with a kelila ornament? Only an important woman; and an important woman does not remove ornaments and show them to others.

ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืจื‘ ืฉืžื•ืืœ ื‘ืจ ื‘ืจ ื—ื ื” ืœืจื‘ ื™ื•ืกืฃ ื‘ืคืจื•ืฉ ืืžืจืช ืœืŸ ืžืฉืžื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ ื›ืœื™ืœื ืฉืจื™

On the same topic, Rav Shmuel bar bar แธคana said to Rav Yosef who, due to illness, forgot his learning: You explicitly said to us in the name of Rav: With regard to a kelila, it is permitted to go out into the public domain on Shabbat.

ืืžืจื• ืœื™ื” ืœืจื‘ ืืชื ื’ื‘ืจื ืจื‘ื” ืืจื™ื›ื ืœื ื”ืจื“ืขื ื•ืžื˜ืœืข ื•ื“ืจืฉ ื›ืœื™ืœื ืฉืจื™ ืืžืจ ืžืืŸ ื’ื‘ืจื ืจื‘ื” ืืจื™ื›ื [ื“ืื™ื˜ืœืข] ืœื•ื™ ืฉืžืข ืžื™ื ื” ื ื— ื ืคืฉื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ื™ ืืคืก ื•ื™ืชื™ื‘ ืจื‘ื™ ื—ื ื™ื ื ื‘ืจื™ืฉื ื•ืœื ื”ื•ื” ืœื™ื” ืื™ื ื™ืฉ ืœืœื•ื™ ืœืžื™ืชื‘ ื’ื‘ื™ื” ื•ืงืืชื™ ืœื”ื›ื

The Gemara relates that one day they said to Rav: A great, tall man came to Nehardeโ€™a and he was limping. And he taught: With a kelila, it is permitted to go out into the public domain on Shabbat. Rav said: Who is a great, tall man who limps? Levi. Conclude from this that Rabbi Afes passed away and Rabbi แธคanina is sitting at the head of the yeshiva in Eretz Yisrael in his place. And, consequently, Levi had no one before whom to sit and study and he came here. As long as Rabbi Afes headed the yeshiva, Rabbi แธคanina would sit outside the study hall. Entering the study hall would indicate that he accepted the authority of Rabbi Afes. Rabbi แธคanina, who was a great man, refused to do so. In deference to Rabbi แธคanina, Levi would sit with him as a colleague outside the study hall. When Levi arrived from Eretz Yisrael, it was clear that Rabbi Afes must have died. Levi, who considered himself Rabbi แธคaninaโ€™s equal in terms of both scholarship and age, did not want to defer to Rabbi แธคaninaโ€™s authority and decided to go to elsewhere, to Babylonia.

ื•ื“ื™ืœืžื ื ื— ื ืคืฉื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ื™ ื—ื ื™ื ื ื•ืจื‘ื™ ืืคืก ื›ื“ืงืื™ ืงืื™ ื•ืœื ื”ื•ื” ืœื™ื” ืื™ื ื™ืฉ ืœืœื•ื™ ืœืžื™ืชื‘ ื’ื‘ื™ื” ื•ืงืืชื™ ืœื”ื›ื ืื ืื™ืชื ื“ืจื‘ื™ ื—ื ื™ื ื ืฉื›ื™ื‘ ืœื•ื™ ืœืจื‘ื™ ืืคืก ืžื™ื›ืฃ ื”ื•ื” ื›ื™ื™ืฃ ืœื™ื” ื•ืชื• ื“ืจื‘ื™ ื—ื ื™ื ื ืœื ืกื’ื™ ื“ืœื ืžืœื™ืš ื“ื›ื™ ื”ื•ื” ืงื ื ื™ื—ื ื ืคืฉื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ื™ ืืžืจ ื—ื ื™ื ื ื‘ืจื‘ื™ ื—ืžื ื™ืชื™ื‘ ื‘ืจืืฉ ื•ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื‘ื”ื• ื‘ืฆื“ื™ืงื™ื ื•ืชื’ื–ืจ ืืžืจ ื•ื™ืงื ืœืš ื•ื’ื•ืณ

The Gemara asks: How did Rav arrive at that particular conclusion? And perhaps Rabbi แธคanina died and Rabbi Afes remained standing in his position at the head of the yeshiva as he stood previously; and Levi had no one with whom to sit outside the study hall, and that is why he came here? The Gemara answers that that could not be the case for two reasons. First, if it were so, that Rabbi แธคanina died, Levi would have been subject to the authority of Rabbi Afes. It was only in deference to Rabbi แธคanina that Levi did not enter the study hall. And furthermore, it could not be that Rabbi แธคanina died and did not reign as head of the yeshiva, as when Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi died, he said in his dying testament: แธคanina, son of Rabbi แธคama, shall sit at the head of the yeshiva. And of the righteous it is written: โ€œYou will decree a saying and it will be established for you, and the light will shine on your waysโ€ (Job 22:28). Since the statement that Rabbi แธคanina will serve at the head of the yeshiva crossed the lips of a righteous person, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, it is inconceivable that it would not have been realized.

ื“ืจืฉ ืœื•ื™ ื‘ื ื”ืจื“ืขื ื›ืœื™ืœื ืฉืจื™ ื ืคื™ืง ืขืฉืจื™ืŸ ื•ืืจื‘ืข ื›ืœื™ืœื™ ืžื›ื•ืœื” ื ื”ืจื“ืขื ื“ืจืฉ ืจื‘ื” ื‘ืจ ืื‘ื•ื” ื‘ืžื—ื•ื–ื ื›ืœื™ืœื ืฉืจื™ ื•ื ืคืงื• ืชืžื ื™ ืกืจื™ ื›ืœื™ืœื™ ืžื—ื“ื ืžื‘ื•ืื”

The Gemara returns to the subject of kelila. When Levi taught in Nehardeโ€™a that with the kelila ornament, one is permitted to go out into the public domain on Shabbat, twenty-four women wearing the kelila ornament went out into the public domain from all of Nehardeโ€™a. When Rabba bar Avuh taught in Meแธฅoza that the kelila ornament is permitted, eighteen women wearing the kelila ornament went out from one alleyway. Meแธฅoza was a wealthy mercantile city, and many women there owned precious jewelry.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืฉืžื•ืืœ ืงืžืจื ืฉืจื™ ืื™ื›ื ื“ืืžืจื™ ื“ืืจื•ืงืชื ื•ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืกืคืจื ืžื™ื“ื™ ื“ื”ื•ื” ืื˜ืœื™ืช ืžื•ื–ื”ื‘ืช

Rav Yehuda said that Rav Shmuel said: With a precious gilded belt [kamra], a woman is permitted to go out into the public domain on Shabbat. Some say that he was referring to a belt made of woven fabric and inlaid with gold. And Rav Safra said: It is permitted just as it is permitted in the case of a gilded cloak.

ื•ืื™ื›ื ื“ืืžืจื™ ื“ืื ื™ืกื›ื ื•ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืกืคืจื ืžื™ื“ื™ ื“ื”ื•ื” ืืื‘ื ื˜ ืฉืœ ืžืœื›ื™ื

And some say that it is referring to a belt made entirely of metal. And Rav Safra said: It is permitted just as it is permitted to go out into the public domain on Shabbat with the belt of kings made entirely of gold.

ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืจื‘ื™ื ื ืœืจื‘ ืืฉื™ ืงืžืจื ืขื™ืœื•ื™ ื”ืžื™ื™ื ื ืžืื™ ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืชืจื™ ื”ืžื™ื™ื ื™ ืงืืžืจืช

Ravina said to Rav Ashi: With regard to going out with a gilded belt over another belt [hemyana], what is the halakha? He said to him: Two belts you said; it is certainly uncommon to wear two belts. Therefore, one of them is a burden.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืืฉื™ ื”ืื™ ืจืกื•ืงื ืื™ ืื™ืช ืœื™ื” ืžืคืจื—ื™ื™ืชื ืฉืจื™ ื•ืื™ ืœื ืืกื™ืจ:

Rav Ashi said: This short cloak; if it has short straps with which to tie it, it is permitted to go out with it, and if not, it is prohibited.

ื•ืœื ื‘ืงื˜ืœื: ืžืื™ ืงื˜ืœื ืžื ืงื˜ื ืคืืจื™: ื ื–ืžื™ื: ื ื–ืžื™ ื”ืืฃ:

We learned in the mishna: And a woman may not go out on Shabbat with a katla. The Gemara explains: What is a katla? A type of small bib hung from the neck. The nezamim mentioned in the mishna with which a woman may not go out on Shabbat refer to nose rings, not earrings.

ื•ืœื ื‘ื˜ื‘ืขืช ืฉืื™ืŸ ืขืœื™ื” ื—ื•ืชื: ื”ื ื™ืฉ ืขืœื™ื” ื—ื•ืชื ื—ื™ื™ื‘ืช ืืœืžื ืœืื• ืชื›ืฉื™ื˜ ื”ื•ื

We learned in the mishna: Nor with a ring that has no seal on it. By inference: If it does have a seal on it, she is liable to bring a sin-offering. She is only exempt from bringing a sacrifice when she goes out with a ring that does not have a seal on it, which is an ornament; however, a ring with a seal on it, typically used by men for sealing documents, is considered a burden for a woman on Shabbat. Apparently, that ring is not an ornament.

ื•ืจืžื™ื ื”ื• ืชื›ืฉื™ื˜ื™ ื ืฉื™ื ื˜ืžืื™ื ื•ืืœื• ื”ืŸ ืชื›ืฉื™ื˜ื™ ื ืฉื™ื ืงื˜ืœืื•ืช ื ื–ืžื™ื ื•ื˜ื‘ืขื•ืช ื•ื˜ื‘ืขืช ื‘ื™ืŸ ืฉื™ืฉ ืขืœื™ื” ื—ื•ืชื ื‘ื™ืŸ ืฉืื™ืŸ ืขืœื™ื” ื—ื•ืชื ื•ื ื–ืžื™ ื”ืืฃ

The Gemara raises a contradiction from a mishna in tractate Kelim: Womenโ€™s ornaments can become ritually impure. And these are womenโ€™s ornaments: Bibs; earrings; and rings; and a ring whether it has a seal on it or whether it does not have a seal on it; and nose rings. Apparently, even a ring that has a seal on it is considered a womanโ€™s ornament.

ื•ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื–ื™ืจื ืœื ืงืฉื™ื ื”ื ืจื‘ื™ ื ื—ืžื™ื” ื”ื ืจื‘ื ืŸ

And Rabbi Zeira said: This is not difficult. Rather, this ruling in our mishna, which distinguishes between a ring with a seal and a ring without a seal, is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Neแธฅemya; that ruling in the mishna in tractate Kelim, which does not distinguish between rings, is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis.

ื“ืชื ื™ื ื”ื™ื ืฉืœ ืžืชื›ืช ื•ื—ื•ืชืžื” ืฉืœ ืืœืžื•ื’ ื˜ืžืื” ื”ื™ื ืฉืœ ืืœืžื•ื’ ื•ื—ื•ืชืžื” ืฉืœ ืžืชื›ืช ื˜ื”ื•ืจื” ื•ืจื‘ื™ ื ื—ืžื™ื” ืžื˜ืžื ืฉื”ื™ื” ืจื‘ื™ ื ื—ืžื™ื” ืื•ืžืจ ื‘ื˜ื‘ืขืช ื”ืœืš ืื—ืจ ื—ื•ืชืžื” ื‘ืขื•ืœ ื”ืœืš ืื—ืจ ืกืžืœื•ื ื™ื•

As it was taught in a baraita: If the ring were made of metal and its seal was made of coral, it can become ritually impure because the primary component of the ring is metal, a material that can become ritually impure. If the ring were made of coral and its seal of metal, it is ritually pure and cannot become ritually impure. Rabbi Neแธฅemya deems it ritually impure, as Rabbi Neแธฅemya would say: With regard to a ring, follow its seal; if the seal were made of material that can become ritually impure, the entire ring can become ritually impure, and if it were made of material that cannot become ritually impure, the entire ring remains pure. The same is true with regard to a yoke of an animal: Follow its rods. Rods are placed in the yoke to fasten it to the animal; the component material of the rods determines whether or not the entire yoke can become ritually impure.

Scroll To Top