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.
This month’s learning is dedicated to the refuah shleima of our dear friend, Phyllis Hecht, גיטל פעשא בת מאשה רחל by all her many friends who love and admire her. Phyllis’ emuna, strength, and positivity are an inspiration.
Want to dedicate learning? Get started here:
English
עברית
0:00
0:00
0:00
0:00
Today’s daily daf tools:
This month’s learning is dedicated to the refuah shleima of our dear friend, Phyllis Hecht, גיטל פעשא בת מאשה רחל by all her many friends who love and admire her. Phyllis’ emuna, strength, and positivity are an inspiration.
Shabbat 59
הוֹאִיל וְרָאוּי לְהַקִּישׁוֹ עַל גַּבֵּי חֶרֶס.
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.
אִיתְּמַר נָמֵי, אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי חֲנִינָא: הוֹאִיל וְרָאוּי לְהַקִּישׁוֹ עַל גַּבֵּי חֶרֶס. רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: הוֹאִיל וְרָאוּי לְגַמֵּעַ בּוֹ מַיִם לְתִינוֹק.
It was also stated that Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, said: It is considered a vessel, since a bell without a clapper is suited to strike on earthenware. Rabbi Yoḥanan said: It is considered a vessel, since it is suited for use to give water to a child to drink.
וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן לָא בָּעֵי מֵעֵין מְלָאכָה רִאשׁוֹנָה? וְהָתַנְיָא: ״וְכׇל כְּלִי אֲשֶׁר יֵשֵׁב עָלָיו וְגוֹ׳״ — יָכוֹל כָּפָה סְאָה וְיָשַׁב עָלֶיהָ, כָּפָה תַּרְקַב וְיָשַׁב עָלֶיהָ יְהֵא טָמֵא, תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״אֲשֶׁר יֵשֵׁב עָלָיו הַזָּב״ — מִי שֶׁמְיוּחָד לִישִׁיבָה, יָצָא זֶה שֶׁאוֹמְרִים לוֹ: עֲמוֹד וְנַעֲשֶׂה מְלַאכְתֵּנוּ.
And with regard to the essence of Rabbi Yoḥanan’s statement, the Gemara asks: And does Rabbi Yoḥanan not require that the vessel’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? Wasn’t it taught in a baraita: “Every bed on which a zav is lying is ritually impure and every vessel on which he is sitting shall be ritually impure” (Leviticus 15:4). I might have thought, based on this verse, that if one overturned a vessel the size of a se’a and sat on it, or overturned a vessel the size of a half-se’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.
רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר אוֹמֵר: בְּמִדְרָסוֹת אוֹמְרִים ״עֲמוֹד וְנַעֲשֶׂה מְלַאכְתֵּנוּ״, וְאֵין אוֹמְרִים בִּטְמֵא מֵת ״עֲמוֹד וְנַעֲשֶׂה מְלַאכְתֵּנוּ״. וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: אַף אוֹמֵר בִּטְמֵא מֵת ״עֲמוֹד וְנַעֲשֶׂה מְלַאכְתֵּנוּ״.
There is a dispute between the amora’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 Yoḥanan 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 Yoḥanan’s opinion, even though it remains suited for drinking water.
אֵיפוֹךְ קַמַּיְיתָא. וּמַאי חֲזֵית דְּאָפְכַתְּ קַמַּיְיתָא? אֵיפוֹךְ בָּתְרָיְיתָא!
The Gemara answers: Reverse the opinions in the first dispute: It was not Rabbi Yoḥanan who gave that reason; it was Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina. The Gemara asks: And what did you see that led you to reverse the first? Reverse the opinions of Rabbi Yoḥanan and Rabbi Elazar in the latter dispute, and avoid a contradiction in the statements of Rabbi Yoḥanan in that way.
הָא שָׁמְעִינַן לֵיהּ לְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן דְּבָעֵי מֵעֵין מְלָאכָה רִאשׁוֹנָה. דְּתַנְיָא: סַנְדָּל שֶׁל בְּהֵמָה שֶׁל מַתֶּכֶת טָמֵא. לְמַאי חֲזֵי? אָמַר רַב: רָאוּי לִשְׁתּוֹת בּוֹ מַיִם בַּמִּלְחָמָה. וְרַבִּי חֲנִינָא אָמַר: רָאוּי לָסוּךְ בּוֹ שֶׁמֶן בַּמִּלְחָמָה. וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: בְּשָׁעָה שֶׁבּוֹרֵחַ מִן הַקְּרָב מַנִּיחוֹ בְּרַגְלָיו וְרָץ עַל קוֹצִין וְעַל הַבַּרְקָנִים.
The Gemara answers: That is because we learned elsewhere that Rabbi Yoḥanan requires that the vessel’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 Ḥanina said: It is suited for use as a vessel from which one could smear oil on his body during a war. And Rabbi Yoḥanan 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.
מַאי בֵּין רַב לְרַבִּי חֲנִינָא? אִיכָּא בֵּינַיְיהוּ דִּמְאִיס.
The Gemara asks parenthetically: What is the practical difference between the explanation of Rav and that of Rabbi Ḥanina? The Gemara answers: There is a practical difference between them in a case where the sandal is repulsive and dirty. In Rav’s opinion, since one would not drink water from it, it cannot become ritually impure. According to Rabbi Ḥanina, since one could still use it to spread oil on his body, it can become ritually impure.
בֵּין רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן לְרַבִּי חֲנִינָא? אִיכָּא בֵּינַיְיהוּ דְּיַקִּיר.
What is the practical difference between the explanation of Rabbi Yoḥanan and that of Rabbi Ḥanina? 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 Yoḥanan.
וְלֹא בְּעִיר שֶׁל זָהָב. מַאי ״בְּעִיר שֶׁל זָהָב״? רַבָּה בַּר בַּר חָנָה אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: יְרוּשָׁלַיִם דְּדַהֲבָא,
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 Ḥana said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Jerusalem of Gold, a gold tiara engraved with a depiction of the city of Jerusalem,
כְּדַעֲבַד לֵיהּ רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא לִדְבֵיתְהוּ.
like the one that Rabbi Akiva made for his wife.
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: לֹא תֵּצֵא אִשָּׁה בְּעִיר שֶׁל זָהָב, וְאִם יָצְתָה חַיֶּיבֶת חַטָּאת, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: לֹא תֵּצֵא, וְאִם יָצְתָה — פְּטוּרָה. רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: יוֹצְאָה אִשָּׁה בְּעִיר שֶׁל זָהָב לְכַתְּחִלָּה.
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.
בְּמַאי קָמִיפַּלְגִי? רַבִּי מֵאִיר סָבַר מַשּׂוֹי הוּא. וְרַבָּנַן סָבְרִי תַּכְשִׁיט הוּא — דִּילְמָא שָׁלְפָא וּמַחְוְיָא לֵיהּ וְאָתְיָא לְאֵתוֹיֵי. וְרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר סָבַר: מַאן דִּרְכֵּהּ לְמִיפַּק בְּעִיר שֶׁל זָהָב — אִשָּׁה חֲשׁוּבָה, וְאִשָּׁה חֲשׁוּבָה לָא שָׁלְפָא וּמַחְוְיָא.
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.
כְּלִילָא, רַב אָסַר וּשְׁמוּאֵל שָׁרֵי.
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 amora’im with regard to a kelila, which is a tiara-like ornament. Rav prohibited going out with it, and Shmuel permitted doing so.
דַּאֲנִיסְכָּא, כּוּלֵּי עָלְמָא לָא פְּלִיגִי דַּאֲסִיר. כִּי פְּלִיגִי דַּאֲרוּקְתָּא: מָר סָבַר אֲנִיסְכָּא עִקָּר, וּמָר סָבַר אֲרוּקְתָּא עִקָּר.
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.
רַב אָשֵׁי מַתְנֵי לְקוּלָּא: דַּאֲרוּקְתָּא דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא לָא פְּלִיגִי דִּשְׁרֵי. כִּי פְּלִיגִי דַּאֲנִיסְכָּא: מָר סָבַר דִּילְמָא שָׁלְפָא וּמַחְוְיָא וְאָתֵי לְאֵתוּיֵי, וּמָר סָבַר מַאן דִּרְכֵּהּ לְמִיפַּק בִּכְלִילָא — אִשָּׁה חֲשׁוּבָה, וְאִשָּׁה חֲשׁוּבָה לָא שָׁלְפָא וּמַחְוְיָא.
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.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר בַּר חָנָה לְרַב יוֹסֵף: בְּפֵרוּשׁ אֲמַרְתְּ לַן מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרַב — ״כְּלִילָא שְׁרֵי״.
On the same topic, Rav Shmuel bar bar Ḥana 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.
אֲמַרוּ לֵיהּ לְרַב: אֲתָא גַּבְרָא רַבָּה אֲרִיכָא לִנְהַרְדְּעָא וּמִטְּלַע, וְדָרֵשׁ ״כְּלִילָא שְׁרֵי״. אֲמַר: מַאן גַּבְרָא רַבָּה אֲרִיכָא [דְּאִיטְּלַע] — לֵוִי, שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ נָח נַפְשֵׁיהּ דְּרַבִּי אַפָּס וִיתִיב רַבִּי חֲנִינָא בְּרֵישָׁא, וְלָא הֲוָה לֵיהּ אִינִישׁ לְלֵוִי לְמֵיתַב גַּבֵּיהּ, וְקָאָתֵי לְהָכָא.
The Gemara relates that one day they said to Rav: A great, tall man came to Neharde’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 Ḥanina 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 Ḥanina would sit outside the study hall. Entering the study hall would indicate that he accepted the authority of Rabbi Afes. Rabbi Ḥanina, who was a great man, refused to do so. In deference to Rabbi Ḥanina, 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 Ḥanina’s equal in terms of both scholarship and age, did not want to defer to Rabbi Ḥanina’s authority and decided to go to elsewhere, to Babylonia.
וְדִילְמָא נָח נַפְשֵׁיהּ דְּרַבִּי חֲנִינָא, וְרַבִּי אַפָּס כִּדְקָאֵי קָאֵי, וְלָא הֲוָה לֵיהּ אִינִישׁ לְלֵוִי לְמֵיתַב גַּבֵּיהּ, וְקָאָתֵי לְהָכָא? אִם אִיתָא דְּרַבִּי חֲנִינָא שְׁכֵיב — לֵוִי לְרַבִּי אַפָּס מִיכָּף הֲוָה כְּיִיף לֵיהּ. וְתוּ, דְּרַבִּי חֲנִינָא לָא סַגִּי דְּלָא מָלֵיךְ, דְּכִי הֲוָה קָא נִיחָא נַפְשֵׁיהּ דְּרַבִּי אָמַר: חֲנִינָא בְּרַבִּי חָמָא יֵשֵׁב בָּרֹאשׁ. וּכְתִיב בְּהוּ בְּצַדִּיקִים: ״וְתִגְזַר אֹמֶר וְיָקׇם לָךְ וְגוֹ׳״.
The Gemara asks: How did Rav arrive at that particular conclusion? And perhaps Rabbi Ḥanina 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 Ḥanina died, Levi would have been subject to the authority of Rabbi Afes. It was only in deference to Rabbi Ḥanina that Levi did not enter the study hall. And furthermore, it could not be that Rabbi Ḥanina died and did not reign as head of the yeshiva, as when Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi died, he said in his dying testament: Ḥanina, son of Rabbi Ḥama, shall sit at the head of the yeshiva. And of the righteous it is written: “You will decree a saying and it will be established for you, and the light will shine on your ways” (Job 22:28). Since the statement that Rabbi Ḥanina 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.
דְּרַשׁ לֵוִי בִּנְהַרְדְּעָא ״כְּלִילָא שְׁרֵי״. נְפוּק עֶשְׂרִין וְאַרְבַּע כְּלִילֵי מִכּוּלַּהּ נְהַרְדְּעָא. דְּרַשׁ רַבָּה בַּר אֲבוּהּ בְּמָחוֹזָא ״כְּלִילָא שְׁרֵי״, וּנְפַקוּ תַּמְנֵי סְרֵי כְּלִילֵי מֵחֲדָא מְבוֹאָה.
The Gemara returns to the subject of kelila. When Levi taught in Neharde’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 Neharde’a. When Rabba bar Avuh taught in Meḥoza that the kelila ornament is permitted, eighteen women wearing the kelila ornament went out from one alleyway. Meḥoza was a wealthy mercantile city, and many women there owned precious jewelry.
אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב שְׁמוּאֵל: קַמְרָא שְׁרֵי. אִיכָּא דְאָמְרִי דַּאֲרוּקְתָּא, וְאָמַר רַב סָפְרָא: מִידֵּי דְּהָוֵה אַטַּלִּית מוּזְהֶבֶת.
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.
וְאִיכָּא דְאָמְרִי דַּאֲנִיסְכָּא, וְאָמַר רַב סָפְרָא: מִידֵּי דְּהָוֵה אַאַבְנֵט שֶׁל מְלָכִים.
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.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רָבִינָא לְרַב אָשֵׁי: קַמְרָא עִילָּוֵי הֶמְיָינָא מַאי? אֲמַר לֵיהּ תְּרֵי הֶמְיָינֵי קָאָמְרַתְּ.
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.
אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי: הַאי רְסוֹקָא, אִי אִית לֵיהּ מַפְרְחָיָיתָא — שְׁרֵי, וְאִי לָא — אֲסִיר.
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.
וְלֹא בְּקַטְלָא. מַאי קַטְלָא — מְנַקְּטָא פָּארֵי. נְזָמִים — נִזְמֵי הָאָף.
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.
וְלֹא בְּטַבַּעַת שֶׁאֵין עָלֶיהָ חוֹתָם. הָא יֵשׁ עָלֶיהָ חוֹתָם — חַיֶּיבֶת. אַלְמָא לָאו תַּכְשִׁיט הוּא.
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.
וּרְמִינְהוּ: תַּכְשִׁיטֵי נָשִׁים טְמֵאִים. וְאֵלּוּ הֵן תַּכְשִׁיטֵי נָשִׁים: קַטְלָאוֹת, נְזָמִים וְטַבָּעוֹת, וְטַבַּעַת בֵּין שֶׁיֵּשׁ עָלֶיהָ חוֹתָם בֵּין שֶׁאֵין עָלֶיהָ חוֹתָם, וְנִזְמֵי הָאָף.
The Gemara raises a contradiction from a mishna in tractate Kelim: Women’s ornaments can become ritually impure. And these are women’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 woman’s ornament.
וְאָמַר רַבִּי זֵירָא, לָא קַשְׁיָא: הָא רַבִּי נְחֶמְיָה, הָא רַבָּנַן.
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 Neḥemya; that ruling in the mishna in tractate Kelim, which does not distinguish between rings, is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis.
דְּתַנְיָא: הִיא שֶׁל מַתֶּכֶת וְחוֹתָמָהּ שֶׁל אַלְמוֹג — טְמֵאָה, הִיא שֶׁל אַלְמוֹג וְחוֹתָמָהּ שֶׁל מַתֶּכֶת — טְהוֹרָה, וְרַבִּי נְחֶמְיָה מְטַמֵּא, שֶׁהָיָה רַבִּי נְחֶמְיָה אוֹמֵר: בְּטַבַּעַת הַלֵּךְ אַחַר חוֹתָמָהּ. בְּעוֹל הַלֵּךְ אַחַר סִמְלוֹנָיו.
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 Neḥemya deems it ritually impure, as Rabbi Neḥemya 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.
Follow
Today’s daily daf tools:
Delve Deeper
Broaden your understanding of the topics on this daf with classes and podcasts from top women Talmud scholars.
Shabbat 59: The Queen of England Does Not Show Off Her Crown
05.04.2020 | י׳ באייר תש״פ
New to Talmud?
Check out our resources designed to help you navigate a page of Talmud – and study at the pace, level and style that fits you.
The Hadran Women’s Tapestry
Meet the diverse women learning Gemara at Hadran and hear their stories.
Robin Zeiger
Tel Aviv, Israel
Having never learned Talmud before, I started Daf Yomi in hopes of connecting to the Rabbinic tradition, sharing a daily idea on Instagram (@dafyomiadventures). With Hadran and Sefaria, I slowly gained confidence in my skills and understanding. Now, part of the Pardes Jewish Educators Program, I can’t wait to bring this love of learning with me as I continue to pass it on to my future students.
Hannah Greenberg
Pennsylvania, United States
Inspired by Hadran’s first Siyum ha Shas L’Nashim two years ago, I began daf yomi right after for the next cycle. As to this extraordinary journey together with Hadran..as TS Eliot wrote “We must not cease from exploration and the end of all our exploring will be to arrive where we began and to know the place for the first time.
Susan Handelman
Jerusalem, Israel
In my Shana bet at Migdal Oz I attended the Hadran siyum hash”as. Witnessing so many women so passionate about their Torah learning and connection to God, I knew I had to begin with the coming cycle. My wedding (June 24) was two weeks before the siyum of mesechet yoma so I went a little ahead and was able to make a speech and siyum at my kiseh kallah on my wedding day!
Sharona Guggenheim Plumb
Givat Shmuel, Israel
I started my Daf Yomi journey at the beginning of the COVID19 pandemic.
Karena Perry
Los Angeles, United States
A beautiful world of Talmudic sages now fill my daily life with discussion and debate.
bringing alive our traditions and texts that has brought new meaning to my life.
I am a מגילת אסתר reader for women . the words in the Mishna of מסכת megillah 17a
הקורא את המגילה למפרע לא יצא were powerful to me.
I hope to have the zchut to complete the cycle for my 70th birthday.
Sheila Hauser
Jerusalem, Israel
I learned Talmud as a student in Yeshivat Ramaz and felt at the time that Talmud wasn’t for me.
After reading Ilana Kurshan’s book I was intrigued and after watching the great siyum in Yerushalayim it ignited the spark to begin this journey. It has been a transformative life experience for me as a wife, mother, Savta and member of Klal Yisrael.
Elana Storch
Phoenix, Arizona, United States
In January 2020, my chevruta suggested that we “up our game. Let’s do Daf Yomi” – and she sent me the Hadran link. I lost my job (and went freelance), there was a pandemic, and I am still opening the podcast with my breakfast coffee, or after Shabbat with popcorn. My Aramaic is improving. I will need a new bookcase, though.
Rhondda May
Atlanta, Georgia, United States
While vacationing in San Diego, Rabbi Leah Herz asked if I’d be interested in being in hevruta with her to learn Daf Yomi through Hadran. Why not? I had loved learning Gemara in college in 1971 but hadn’t returned. With the onset of covid, Daf Yomi and Rabbanit Michelle centered me each day. Thank-you for helping me grow and enter this amazing world of learning.
Meryll Page
Minneapolis, MN, United States
I started learning Daf Yomi in January 2020 after watching my grandfather, Mayer Penstein z”l, finish shas with the previous cycle. My grandfather made learning so much fun was so proud that his grandchildren wanted to join him. I was also inspired by Ilana Kurshan’s book, If All the Seas Were Ink. Two years in, I can say that it has enriched my life in so many ways.
Leeza Hirt Wilner
New York, United States
Robin Zeiger
Tel Aviv, Israel
I never thought I’d be able to do Daf Yomi till I saw the video of Hadran’s Siyum HaShas. Now, 2 years later, I’m about to participate in Siyum Seder Mo’ed with my Hadran community. It has been an incredible privilege to learn with Rabbanit Michelle and to get to know so many caring, talented and knowledgeable women. I look forward with great anticipation and excitement to learning Seder Nashim.
Caroline Ben-Ari
Karmiel, Israel
“I got my job through the NY Times” was an ad campaign when I was growing up. I can headline “I got my daily Daf shiur and Hadran through the NY Times”. I read the January 4, 2020 feature on Reb. Michelle Farber and Hadran and I have been participating ever since. Thanks NY Times & Hadran!
Deborah Aschheim
New York, United States
In early January of 2020, I learned about Siyyum HaShas and Daf Yomi via Tablet Magazine’s brief daily podcast about the Daf. I found it compelling and fascinating. Soon I discovered Hadran; since then I have learned the Daf daily with Rabbanit Michelle Cohen Farber. The Daf has permeated my every hour, and has transformed and magnified my place within the Jewish Universe.
Lisa Berkelhammer
San Francisco, CA , United States
Geri Goldstein got me started learning daf yomi when I was in Israel 2 years ago. It’s been a challenge and I’ve learned a lot though I’m sure I miss a lot. I quilt as I listen and I want to share what I’ve been working on.
Rebecca Stulberg
Ottawa, Canada
Last cycle, I listened to parts of various מסכתות. When the הדרן סיום was advertised, I listened to Michelle on נידה. I knew that בע”ה with the next cycle I was in (ב”נ). As I entered the סיום (early), I saw the signs and was overcome with emotion. I was randomly seated in the front row, and I cried many times that night. My choice to learn דף יומי was affirmed. It is one of the best I have made!
Miriam Tannenbaum
אפרת, Israel
I began my journey two years ago at the beginning of this cycle of the daf yomi. It has been an incredible, challenging experience and has given me a new perspective of Torah Sh’baal Peh and the role it plays in our lives
linda kalish-marcus
Efrat, Israel
I tried Daf Yomi in the middle of the last cycle after realizing I could listen to Michelle’s shiurim online. It lasted all of 2 days! Then the new cycle started just days before my father’s first yahrzeit and my youngest daughter’s bat mitzvah. It seemed the right time for a new beginning. My family, friends, colleagues are immensely supportive!
Catriella Freedman
Zichron Yaakov, Israel
After enthusing to my friend Ruth Kahan about how much I had enjoyed remote Jewish learning during the earlier part of the pandemic, she challenged me to join her in learning the daf yomi cycle. I had always wanted to do daf yomi but now had no excuse. The beginning was particularly hard as I had never studied Talmud but has become easier, as I have gained some familiarity with it.
Susan Vishner
Brookline, United States
I learned daf more off than on 40 years ago. At the beginning of the current cycle, I decided to commit to learning daf regularly. Having Rabanit Michelle available as a learning partner has been amazing. Sometimes I learn with Hadran, sometimes with my husband, and sometimes on my own. It’s been fun to be part of an extended learning community.
Miriam Pollack
Honolulu, Hawaii, United States
Shabbat 59
הוֹאִיל וְרָאוּי לְהַקִּישׁוֹ עַל גַּבֵּי חֶרֶס.
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.
אִיתְּמַר נָמֵי, אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי חֲנִינָא: הוֹאִיל וְרָאוּי לְהַקִּישׁוֹ עַל גַּבֵּי חֶרֶס. רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: הוֹאִיל וְרָאוּי לְגַמֵּעַ בּוֹ מַיִם לְתִינוֹק.
It was also stated that Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, said: It is considered a vessel, since a bell without a clapper is suited to strike on earthenware. Rabbi Yoḥanan said: It is considered a vessel, since it is suited for use to give water to a child to drink.
וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן לָא בָּעֵי מֵעֵין מְלָאכָה רִאשׁוֹנָה? וְהָתַנְיָא: ״וְכׇל כְּלִי אֲשֶׁר יֵשֵׁב עָלָיו וְגוֹ׳״ — יָכוֹל כָּפָה סְאָה וְיָשַׁב עָלֶיהָ, כָּפָה תַּרְקַב וְיָשַׁב עָלֶיהָ יְהֵא טָמֵא, תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״אֲשֶׁר יֵשֵׁב עָלָיו הַזָּב״ — מִי שֶׁמְיוּחָד לִישִׁיבָה, יָצָא זֶה שֶׁאוֹמְרִים לוֹ: עֲמוֹד וְנַעֲשֶׂה מְלַאכְתֵּנוּ.
And with regard to the essence of Rabbi Yoḥanan’s statement, the Gemara asks: And does Rabbi Yoḥanan not require that the vessel’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? Wasn’t it taught in a baraita: “Every bed on which a zav is lying is ritually impure and every vessel on which he is sitting shall be ritually impure” (Leviticus 15:4). I might have thought, based on this verse, that if one overturned a vessel the size of a se’a and sat on it, or overturned a vessel the size of a half-se’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.
רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר אוֹמֵר: בְּמִדְרָסוֹת אוֹמְרִים ״עֲמוֹד וְנַעֲשֶׂה מְלַאכְתֵּנוּ״, וְאֵין אוֹמְרִים בִּטְמֵא מֵת ״עֲמוֹד וְנַעֲשֶׂה מְלַאכְתֵּנוּ״. וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: אַף אוֹמֵר בִּטְמֵא מֵת ״עֲמוֹד וְנַעֲשֶׂה מְלַאכְתֵּנוּ״.
There is a dispute between the amora’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 Yoḥanan 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 Yoḥanan’s opinion, even though it remains suited for drinking water.
אֵיפוֹךְ קַמַּיְיתָא. וּמַאי חֲזֵית דְּאָפְכַתְּ קַמַּיְיתָא? אֵיפוֹךְ בָּתְרָיְיתָא!
The Gemara answers: Reverse the opinions in the first dispute: It was not Rabbi Yoḥanan who gave that reason; it was Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina. The Gemara asks: And what did you see that led you to reverse the first? Reverse the opinions of Rabbi Yoḥanan and Rabbi Elazar in the latter dispute, and avoid a contradiction in the statements of Rabbi Yoḥanan in that way.
הָא שָׁמְעִינַן לֵיהּ לְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן דְּבָעֵי מֵעֵין מְלָאכָה רִאשׁוֹנָה. דְּתַנְיָא: סַנְדָּל שֶׁל בְּהֵמָה שֶׁל מַתֶּכֶת טָמֵא. לְמַאי חֲזֵי? אָמַר רַב: רָאוּי לִשְׁתּוֹת בּוֹ מַיִם בַּמִּלְחָמָה. וְרַבִּי חֲנִינָא אָמַר: רָאוּי לָסוּךְ בּוֹ שֶׁמֶן בַּמִּלְחָמָה. וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: בְּשָׁעָה שֶׁבּוֹרֵחַ מִן הַקְּרָב מַנִּיחוֹ בְּרַגְלָיו וְרָץ עַל קוֹצִין וְעַל הַבַּרְקָנִים.
The Gemara answers: That is because we learned elsewhere that Rabbi Yoḥanan requires that the vessel’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 Ḥanina said: It is suited for use as a vessel from which one could smear oil on his body during a war. And Rabbi Yoḥanan 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.
מַאי בֵּין רַב לְרַבִּי חֲנִינָא? אִיכָּא בֵּינַיְיהוּ דִּמְאִיס.
The Gemara asks parenthetically: What is the practical difference between the explanation of Rav and that of Rabbi Ḥanina? The Gemara answers: There is a practical difference between them in a case where the sandal is repulsive and dirty. In Rav’s opinion, since one would not drink water from it, it cannot become ritually impure. According to Rabbi Ḥanina, since one could still use it to spread oil on his body, it can become ritually impure.
בֵּין רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן לְרַבִּי חֲנִינָא? אִיכָּא בֵּינַיְיהוּ דְּיַקִּיר.
What is the practical difference between the explanation of Rabbi Yoḥanan and that of Rabbi Ḥanina? 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 Yoḥanan.
וְלֹא בְּעִיר שֶׁל זָהָב. מַאי ״בְּעִיר שֶׁל זָהָב״? רַבָּה בַּר בַּר חָנָה אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: יְרוּשָׁלַיִם דְּדַהֲבָא,
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 Ḥana said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Jerusalem of Gold, a gold tiara engraved with a depiction of the city of Jerusalem,
כְּדַעֲבַד לֵיהּ רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא לִדְבֵיתְהוּ.
like the one that Rabbi Akiva made for his wife.
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: לֹא תֵּצֵא אִשָּׁה בְּעִיר שֶׁל זָהָב, וְאִם יָצְתָה חַיֶּיבֶת חַטָּאת, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: לֹא תֵּצֵא, וְאִם יָצְתָה — פְּטוּרָה. רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: יוֹצְאָה אִשָּׁה בְּעִיר שֶׁל זָהָב לְכַתְּחִלָּה.
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.
בְּמַאי קָמִיפַּלְגִי? רַבִּי מֵאִיר סָבַר מַשּׂוֹי הוּא. וְרַבָּנַן סָבְרִי תַּכְשִׁיט הוּא — דִּילְמָא שָׁלְפָא וּמַחְוְיָא לֵיהּ וְאָתְיָא לְאֵתוֹיֵי. וְרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר סָבַר: מַאן דִּרְכֵּהּ לְמִיפַּק בְּעִיר שֶׁל זָהָב — אִשָּׁה חֲשׁוּבָה, וְאִשָּׁה חֲשׁוּבָה לָא שָׁלְפָא וּמַחְוְיָא.
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.
כְּלִילָא, רַב אָסַר וּשְׁמוּאֵל שָׁרֵי.
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 amora’im with regard to a kelila, which is a tiara-like ornament. Rav prohibited going out with it, and Shmuel permitted doing so.
דַּאֲנִיסְכָּא, כּוּלֵּי עָלְמָא לָא פְּלִיגִי דַּאֲסִיר. כִּי פְּלִיגִי דַּאֲרוּקְתָּא: מָר סָבַר אֲנִיסְכָּא עִקָּר, וּמָר סָבַר אֲרוּקְתָּא עִקָּר.
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.
רַב אָשֵׁי מַתְנֵי לְקוּלָּא: דַּאֲרוּקְתָּא דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא לָא פְּלִיגִי דִּשְׁרֵי. כִּי פְּלִיגִי דַּאֲנִיסְכָּא: מָר סָבַר דִּילְמָא שָׁלְפָא וּמַחְוְיָא וְאָתֵי לְאֵתוּיֵי, וּמָר סָבַר מַאן דִּרְכֵּהּ לְמִיפַּק בִּכְלִילָא — אִשָּׁה חֲשׁוּבָה, וְאִשָּׁה חֲשׁוּבָה לָא שָׁלְפָא וּמַחְוְיָא.
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.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר בַּר חָנָה לְרַב יוֹסֵף: בְּפֵרוּשׁ אֲמַרְתְּ לַן מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרַב — ״כְּלִילָא שְׁרֵי״.
On the same topic, Rav Shmuel bar bar Ḥana 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.
אֲמַרוּ לֵיהּ לְרַב: אֲתָא גַּבְרָא רַבָּה אֲרִיכָא לִנְהַרְדְּעָא וּמִטְּלַע, וְדָרֵשׁ ״כְּלִילָא שְׁרֵי״. אֲמַר: מַאן גַּבְרָא רַבָּה אֲרִיכָא [דְּאִיטְּלַע] — לֵוִי, שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ נָח נַפְשֵׁיהּ דְּרַבִּי אַפָּס וִיתִיב רַבִּי חֲנִינָא בְּרֵישָׁא, וְלָא הֲוָה לֵיהּ אִינִישׁ לְלֵוִי לְמֵיתַב גַּבֵּיהּ, וְקָאָתֵי לְהָכָא.
The Gemara relates that one day they said to Rav: A great, tall man came to Neharde’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 Ḥanina 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 Ḥanina would sit outside the study hall. Entering the study hall would indicate that he accepted the authority of Rabbi Afes. Rabbi Ḥanina, who was a great man, refused to do so. In deference to Rabbi Ḥanina, 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 Ḥanina’s equal in terms of both scholarship and age, did not want to defer to Rabbi Ḥanina’s authority and decided to go to elsewhere, to Babylonia.
וְדִילְמָא נָח נַפְשֵׁיהּ דְּרַבִּי חֲנִינָא, וְרַבִּי אַפָּס כִּדְקָאֵי קָאֵי, וְלָא הֲוָה לֵיהּ אִינִישׁ לְלֵוִי לְמֵיתַב גַּבֵּיהּ, וְקָאָתֵי לְהָכָא? אִם אִיתָא דְּרַבִּי חֲנִינָא שְׁכֵיב — לֵוִי לְרַבִּי אַפָּס מִיכָּף הֲוָה כְּיִיף לֵיהּ. וְתוּ, דְּרַבִּי חֲנִינָא לָא סַגִּי דְּלָא מָלֵיךְ, דְּכִי הֲוָה קָא נִיחָא נַפְשֵׁיהּ דְּרַבִּי אָמַר: חֲנִינָא בְּרַבִּי חָמָא יֵשֵׁב בָּרֹאשׁ. וּכְתִיב בְּהוּ בְּצַדִּיקִים: ״וְתִגְזַר אֹמֶר וְיָקׇם לָךְ וְגוֹ׳״.
The Gemara asks: How did Rav arrive at that particular conclusion? And perhaps Rabbi Ḥanina 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 Ḥanina died, Levi would have been subject to the authority of Rabbi Afes. It was only in deference to Rabbi Ḥanina that Levi did not enter the study hall. And furthermore, it could not be that Rabbi Ḥanina died and did not reign as head of the yeshiva, as when Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi died, he said in his dying testament: Ḥanina, son of Rabbi Ḥama, shall sit at the head of the yeshiva. And of the righteous it is written: “You will decree a saying and it will be established for you, and the light will shine on your ways” (Job 22:28). Since the statement that Rabbi Ḥanina 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.
דְּרַשׁ לֵוִי בִּנְהַרְדְּעָא ״כְּלִילָא שְׁרֵי״. נְפוּק עֶשְׂרִין וְאַרְבַּע כְּלִילֵי מִכּוּלַּהּ נְהַרְדְּעָא. דְּרַשׁ רַבָּה בַּר אֲבוּהּ בְּמָחוֹזָא ״כְּלִילָא שְׁרֵי״, וּנְפַקוּ תַּמְנֵי סְרֵי כְּלִילֵי מֵחֲדָא מְבוֹאָה.
The Gemara returns to the subject of kelila. When Levi taught in Neharde’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 Neharde’a. When Rabba bar Avuh taught in Meḥoza that the kelila ornament is permitted, eighteen women wearing the kelila ornament went out from one alleyway. Meḥoza was a wealthy mercantile city, and many women there owned precious jewelry.
אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב שְׁמוּאֵל: קַמְרָא שְׁרֵי. אִיכָּא דְאָמְרִי דַּאֲרוּקְתָּא, וְאָמַר רַב סָפְרָא: מִידֵּי דְּהָוֵה אַטַּלִּית מוּזְהֶבֶת.
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.
וְאִיכָּא דְאָמְרִי דַּאֲנִיסְכָּא, וְאָמַר רַב סָפְרָא: מִידֵּי דְּהָוֵה אַאַבְנֵט שֶׁל מְלָכִים.
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.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רָבִינָא לְרַב אָשֵׁי: קַמְרָא עִילָּוֵי הֶמְיָינָא מַאי? אֲמַר לֵיהּ תְּרֵי הֶמְיָינֵי קָאָמְרַתְּ.
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.
אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי: הַאי רְסוֹקָא, אִי אִית לֵיהּ מַפְרְחָיָיתָא — שְׁרֵי, וְאִי לָא — אֲסִיר.
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.
וְלֹא בְּקַטְלָא. מַאי קַטְלָא — מְנַקְּטָא פָּארֵי. נְזָמִים — נִזְמֵי הָאָף.
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.
וְלֹא בְּטַבַּעַת שֶׁאֵין עָלֶיהָ חוֹתָם. הָא יֵשׁ עָלֶיהָ חוֹתָם — חַיֶּיבֶת. אַלְמָא לָאו תַּכְשִׁיט הוּא.
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.
וּרְמִינְהוּ: תַּכְשִׁיטֵי נָשִׁים טְמֵאִים. וְאֵלּוּ הֵן תַּכְשִׁיטֵי נָשִׁים: קַטְלָאוֹת, נְזָמִים וְטַבָּעוֹת, וְטַבַּעַת בֵּין שֶׁיֵּשׁ עָלֶיהָ חוֹתָם בֵּין שֶׁאֵין עָלֶיהָ חוֹתָם, וְנִזְמֵי הָאָף.
The Gemara raises a contradiction from a mishna in tractate Kelim: Women’s ornaments can become ritually impure. And these are women’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 woman’s ornament.
וְאָמַר רַבִּי זֵירָא, לָא קַשְׁיָא: הָא רַבִּי נְחֶמְיָה, הָא רַבָּנַן.
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 Neḥemya; that ruling in the mishna in tractate Kelim, which does not distinguish between rings, is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis.
דְּתַנְיָא: הִיא שֶׁל מַתֶּכֶת וְחוֹתָמָהּ שֶׁל אַלְמוֹג — טְמֵאָה, הִיא שֶׁל אַלְמוֹג וְחוֹתָמָהּ שֶׁל מַתֶּכֶת — טְהוֹרָה, וְרַבִּי נְחֶמְיָה מְטַמֵּא, שֶׁהָיָה רַבִּי נְחֶמְיָה אוֹמֵר: בְּטַבַּעַת הַלֵּךְ אַחַר חוֹתָמָהּ. בְּעוֹל הַלֵּךְ אַחַר סִמְלוֹנָיו.
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 Neḥemya deems it ritually impure, as Rabbi Neḥemya 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.
Follow
