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

Today's Daf Yomi

May 7, 2020 | 讬状讙 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'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 62

The mishna mentions items that are forbidden by Torah law for a woman to carry in the public domain. Ulla explans that laws of what can and cannot be carried are opposite for men and women. The gemara brings two different explanations for his opinions. If a woman can’t wear a signet ring, why is it forbidden by Torah law if she is wearing it and not carrying it in a normal manner, which would make it only rabbinic. There is a debate regarding weearing a satchel of herbs and a flask of balsam oil. The gemara brings verses from Amos relating to balsam oil and from there to verses in Yeshayahu, both discussing sins of the people and of the women’s inappropriate behavior.

讜讛转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讗讜砖注讬讗 讗讜诪专 讜讘诇讘讚 砖诇讗 讬讗讞讝谞讜 讘讬讚讜 讜讬注讘讬专谞讜 讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 讘专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐

But wasn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita that Rabbi Oshaya says with regard to an amulet: As long as he does not hold it in his hand and carry it four cubits in the public domain? Apparently, even with regard to an amulet, there is a distinction between wearing it and carrying it.

[讗诇讗] 讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讘诪讞讜驻讛 注讜专

Rather, with what are we dealing here? With an amulet that is covered in leather. Since the writing itself is covered, the name of God is not degraded when the amulet is brought into the bathroom with him.

讜讛专讬 转驻讬诇讬谉 讚诪讞讜驻讛 注讜专 讜转谞讬讗 讛谞讻谞住 诇讘讬转 讛讻住讗 讞讜诇抓 转驻讬诇讬谉 讘专讞讜拽 讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 讜谞讻谞住

The Gemara objects. There is writing on the scrolls of phylacteries, which is covered in the leather of boxes housing the scrolls, and nevertheless it was taught in a baraita: One who enters a bathroom while wearing phylacteries must remove the phylacteries at a distance of four cubits and only then enter. There is no halakhic difference whether or not the writing is covered.

讛转诐 诪砖讜诐 砖讬谉 讚讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 砖讬谉 砖诇 转驻讬诇讬谉 讛诇讻讛 诇诪砖讛 诪住讬谞讬 讜讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讚诇转 砖诇 转驻讬诇讬谉 讛诇讻讛 诇诪砖讛 诪住讬谞讬 讜讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讬讜讚 砖诇 转驻讬诇讬谉 讛诇讻讛 诇诪砖讛 诪住讬谞讬:

The Gemara rejects this: There, with regard to phylacteries, the prohibition to enter the bathroom is not due to the sacred writing on the scrolls inside the phylacteries. Rather, it is due to the letter shin that protrudes from the leather of the boxes housing the scroll in the phylacteries of the head, as Abaye said: The source of the requirement of the shin of the phylacteries is a halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai. It is required by Torah law. And, Abaye said: The knot in the shape of the letter dalet in the straps of the phylacteries of the head is a halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai. And, Abaye said: The letter yod of the phylacteries is a halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai. It is due to those letters that one must safeguard the sanctity of the phylacteries and refrain from taking them into the bathroom.

讜诇讗 讘砖专讬讜谉 讜诇讗 讘拽住讚讗 讜诇讗 讘诪讙驻讬讬诐:

We learned in the mishna: And he may neither go out with shiryon, nor with a kasda, nor with maggafayim. These terms were not understood, and therefore the Gemara explains them:

砖专讬讜谉 讝专讚讗 拽住讚讗 讗诪专 专讘 住谞讜讗专转讗 诪讙驻讬讬诐 讗诪专 专讘 驻讝诪拽讬:

Shiryon is a coat of mail [zerada], armor made of scales. Kasda: Rav said that it is a leather hat [sanvarta] worn under a metal helmet. Maggafayim: Rav said they are leg armor worn beneath the knee.

诪转谞讬壮 诇讗 转爪讗 讗砖讛 讘诪讞讟 讛谞拽讜讘讛 讜诇讗 讘讟讘注转 砖讬砖 注诇讬讛 讞讜转诐 讜诇讗 讘讻讜诇讬讗专 讜诇讗 讘讻讜讘诇转 讜诇讗 讘爪诇讜讞讬转 砖诇 驻诇讬讬讟讜谉

MISHNA: A woman may neither go out to the public domain with a perforated needle, i.e., a standard needle with an eye, nor with a ring that has a seal on it, nor with a kulyar, nor with a kovelet, the identity of which will be discussed in the Gemara, nor with a flask of balsam oil.

讜讗诐 讬爪转讛 讞讬讬讘转 讞讟讗转 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讜讞讻诪讬诐 驻讜讟专讬谉 讘讻讜讘诇转 讜讘爪诇讜讞讬转 砖诇 驻诇讬讬讟讜谉:

And if she did go out into the public domain, she is liable to bring a sin-offering; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir, who holds that in doing so she violated the Torah prohibition of carrying a burden in the public domain on Shabbat. And the Rabbis exempt one who goes out on Shabbat with a kovelet and with a flask of balsam oil. In their opinion, these are ornaments, and therefore they do not fundamentally violate the Torah prohibition of carrying in the public domain on Shabbat.

讙诪壮 讗诪专 注讜诇讗 讜讞讬诇讜驻讬讛谉 讘讗讬砖 讗诇诪讗 拽住讘专 注讜诇讗 讻诇 诪讬讚讬 讚讞讝讬 诇讗讬砖 诇讗 讞讝讬 诇讗砖讛 讜诪讬讚讬 讚讞讝讬 诇讗砖讛 诇讗 讞讝讬 诇讗讬砖

GEMARA: With regard to that which we learned in the mishna that a woman may not go out on Shabbat with a ring that has a seal, and by inference that she may go out with a ring without a seal, Ulla said: And the reverse of these halakhot is true with regard to a man. A man who wears a ring with a seal in the public domain is exempt. However, if he wears a ring without a seal, he is liable to bring a sin-offering as it is not considered an ornament for a man. Based on that statement, the Gemara concludes: Apparently, Ulla holds that every object that is suitable for a man is not suitable for a woman, and an object that is suitable for a woman is not suitable for a man.

诪转讬讘 专讘 讬讜住祝 讛专讜注讬诐 讬讜爪讗讬谉 讘砖拽讬谉 讜诇讗 讛专讜注讬诐 讘诇讘讚 讗诪专讜 讗诇讗 讻诇 讗讚诐 讗诇讗 砖讚专讻谉 砖诇 讛专讜注讬诐 诇爪讗转 讘砖拽讬谉

Rav Yosef raised an objection from the Tosefta: Shepherds may go out on Shabbat in garments made of sacks. And not with regard to the shepherds alone did the Sages say that they are permitted to go out in sacks on Shabbat; rather, any person may do so. However, the Sages taught the halakha with regard to shepherds because it is the standard practice of shepherds to go out in sacks. Apparently, although a sack is not a typical garment for most people, it is permitted even for one who is not a shepherd and would not generally wear it. Based on the same principle, although men do not generally wear women鈥檚 ornaments and women do not generally wear men鈥檚 ornaments, since occasionally a man might wear an ornament belonging to a woman or vice versa, each should be permitted to go out into the public domain with the ornament of the other.

[讗诇讗] 讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 拽住讘专 注讜诇讗 谞砖讬诐 注诐 讘驻谞讬 注爪诪谉 讛谉

Rather, Rav Yosef said: Ulla holds that women are a people unto themselves. The difference between the standard practice of men and women is greater than the difference between the standard practice of practitioners of different professions.

讗讬转讬讘讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讛诪讜爪讗 转驻讬诇讬谉 诪讻谞讬住谉 讝讜讙 讝讜讙 讗讞讚 讛讗讬砖 讜讗讞讚 讛讗砖讛 讜讗讬 讗诪专转 谞砖讬诐 注诐 讘驻谞讬 注爪诪谉 讛谉 讜讛讗 诪爪讜转 注砖讛 砖讛讝诪谉 讙专诪讗 讛讜讗 讜讻诇 诪爪讜转 注砖讛 砖讛讝诪谉 讙专诪讗 谞砖讬诐 驻讟讜专讜转

Abaye raised an objection to Rav Yosef鈥檚 statement from the Tosefta: One who finds phylacteries outside of the city on Shabbat should don them and bring them into the city one pair at a time. This applies to both a man and a woman. And if you say that women are a people unto themselves, isn鈥檛 the mitzva to don phylacteries a time-bound, positive mitzva, as there are times when the mitzva to don phylacteries is not in effect? And the following is a halakhic principle: Women are exempt from every time-bound, positive mitzva. If, in fact, the clothing and ornaments of a man are not suitable for a woman under any circumstances, why is a woman permitted to don the phylacteries and bring them into the city on Shabbat? Shouldn鈥檛 that be considered a prohibited act of carrying?

讛转诐 拽住讘专 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 诇讬诇讛 讝诪谉 转驻讬诇讬谉 讛讜讗 讜砖讘转 讝诪谉 转驻讬诇讬谉 讛讜讗 讛讜讛 诇讬讛 诪爪讜转 注砖讛 砖诇讗 讛讝诪谉 讙专诪讗 讜讻诇 诪爪讜转 注砖讛 砖诇讗 讛讝诪谉 讙专诪讗 谞砖讬诐 讞讬讬讘讜转

The Gemara answers: There, with regard to phylacteries, Rabbi Meir holds that night is an appropriate time to don phylacteries, and Shabbat and Festivals are similarly an appropriate time to don phylacteries. Consequently, the mitzva of phylacteries is a positive mitzva that is not time bound; and in every positive mitzva that is not time bound, women are obligated. Therefore, women are permitted to don the phylacteries and bring them into the city.

讜讛讗 讛讜爪讗讛 讻诇讗讞专 讬讚 讛讬讗

With regard to Rabbi Meir鈥檚 ruling in the mishna that a woman is liable by Torah law if she goes out into the public domain wearing a ring with a seal, the Gemara asks: Isn鈥檛 it considered carrying out in a backhanded manner? A ring with a seal is not an ornament for a woman; it is an object like any other. One typically carries objects holding them in his hand. Wearing an object around one鈥檚 finger is atypical. There is no Torah prohibition violated when a labor is performed in an atypical manner.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 讘讗砖讛 讙讝讘专讬转 注住拽讬谞谉 讗诪专 专讘讛 (讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉) 转专爪转 讗砖讛 讗讬砖 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专

Rabbi Yirmeya said that we are dealing in the mishna with a woman who is a treasurer for charity. A woman with that occupation typically wears a ring with a seal on her finger in order to perform her job. She does not, though, wear it as an ornament. Rabba bar bar 岣na said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said: You answered and explained why, in the case of a woman, she would be liable to bring a sin-offering. However, in the case of a man who wore a ring without a seal, what is there to say? Why should he be liable?

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 驻注诪讬诐 砖讗讚诐 谞讜转谉 诇讗砖转讜 讟讘注转 砖讬砖 注诇讬讛 讞讜转诐 诇讛讜诇讬讻讛 诇拽讜驻住讗 讜诪谞讬讞转讛 讘讬讚讛 注讚 砖诪讙注转 诇拽讜驻住讗 讜驻注诪讬诐 砖讛讗砖讛 谞讜转谞转 诇讘注诇讛 讟讘注转 砖讗讬谉 注诇讬讛 讞讜转诐 诇讛讜诇讬讻讛 讗爪诇 讗讜诪谉 诇转拽谉 讜诪谞讬讞讛 讘讬讚讜 注讚 砖诪讙讬注 讗爪诇 讗讜诪谉:

Rather, Rava said that there is a different reason: Sometimes a person gives his wife a ring that has a seal on it to take it to his house and place it in a box for safekeeping, and, in order to ensure that she does not lose the ring, the woman places it in on her hand, i.e., on her finger, until she reaches the box. And, likewise, sometimes a woman gives her husband a ring that does not have a seal on it to take it to a craftsman to repair it, and the husband places it on his hand, i.e., on his finger, until he reaches the craftsman. The purpose of wearing these rings is not for ornamentation. Nevertheless, it is considered a typical manner of carrying them.

讜诇讗 讘讻讜诇讬讗专 讜诇讗 讘讻讜讘诇转: 诪讗讬 讻讜诇讬讗专 讗诪专 专讘 诪讻讘谞转讗 讻讜讘诇转 讗诪专 专讘 讞讜诪专转讗 讚驻讬诇讜谉 讜讻谉 讗诪专 专讘 讗住讬 讞讜诪专转讗 讚驻讬诇讜谉

We learned in the mishna: Nor with a kulyar, nor with a kovelet. The Gemara asks: What is a kulyar? Rav said: A brooch with which a woman fastens the collar of her garment. Kovelet: Rav said that it is a bundle of fragrant herbs [pilon]. And, similarly, Rav Asi said: A bundle of fragrant herbs.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 诇讗 转爪讗 讘讻讜讘诇转 讜讗诐 讬爪转讛 讞讬讬讘转 讞讟讗转 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 诇讗 转爪讗 讜讗诐 讬爪转讛 驻讟讜专讛 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 讬讜爪讗讛 讗砖讛 讘讻讜讘诇转 诇讻转讞诇讛

The Sages taught in a baraita: A woman may not go out on Shabbat with a bundle of fragrant herbs, and if she did go out she is liable to bring a sin-offering, as she violated a Torah prohibition; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. And the Rabbis say: She may not go out ab initio; however, if she went out, she is exempt. Rabbi Eliezer says: A woman may go out with a bundle of fragrant herbs even ab initio.

讘诪讗讬 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 住讘专 诪砖讗讜讬 讛讜讗 讜专讘谞谉 住讘专讬 转讻砖讬讟 讛讜讗 讜讚讬诇诪讗 砖诇驻讗 讜诪讞讜讬讗 讜讗转讬讗 诇讗讬转讜讬讬讛 讜专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 住讘专 诪讗谉 讚专讻讛 诇诪讬专诪讬讛 讗砖讛 砖专讬讞讛 专注 讗砖讛 砖专讬讞讛 专注 诇讗 砖诇驻讗 讜诪讞讜讬讗 讜诇讗 讗转讬讗 诇讗转讜讬讬讛 讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 讘专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐

The Gemara asks: With regard to what principle do they disagree? Rabbi Meir holds that it is a burden. Therefore, one who takes it out into the public domain on Shabbat is liable to bring a sin-offering. And the Rabbis hold that it is an ornament. Nevertheless, they prohibited going out with it ab initio due to concern lest she remove the bundle of herbs from its place, and show it to others, and come to carry it in the public domain. And Rabbi Eliezer holds: Whose practice is it to place fragrant herbs on herself? A woman whose odor is foul. But a woman whose odor is foul does not remove and show the bundle to others because, by doing so, her odor will be detected, a situation that she would prefer to avoid. And, therefore she will not come to carry it four cubits in the public domain.

讜讛转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 驻讜讟专 讘讻讜讘诇转 讜讘爪诇讜讞讬转 砖诇 驻诇讬讬讟讜谉

This baraita cites the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, who permits, even ab initio, going out into the public domain with a bundle of herbs. The Gemara asks: Wasn鈥檛 it taught in another baraita: Rabbi Eliezer exempts a woman who goes out on Shabbat with a bundle of herbs and with a flask of balsam oil? With regard to the halakhot of Shabbat, exempt means that although it is not prohibited by Torah law, it is prohibited ab initio by rabbinic law.

诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 讻讬 拽讗讬 讗讚专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讛讗 讻讬 拽讗讬 讗讚专讘谞谉 讻讬 拽讗讬 讗讚专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讚讗诪专 讞讬讬讘 讞讟讗转 讗诪专 诇讬讛 驻讟讜专 讻讬 拽讗讬 讗讚专讘谞谉 讚讗诪专讬 驻讟讜专 讗讘诇 讗住讜专 讗诪专 讗讬讛讜 诪讜转专 诇讻转讞诇讛

The Gemara answers: This is not difficult. When Rabbi Eliezer made this statement, it was when he was addressing the statement of Rabbi Meir. When Rabbi Eliezer made that statement, it was when he was addressing the statement of the Rabbis. To clarify: When he was addressing the statement of Rabbi Meir, who said that she is liable to bring a sin-offering, he said to him that she is exempt from bringing the sacrifice. When he was addressing the statement of the Rabbis, who said that she is exempt but it is prohibited ab initio, he said that it is permitted even ab initio.

讜诪讗讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讚转谞讬讗 诇讗 转爪讗 讗砖讛 讘诪驻转讞 砖讘讬讚讛 讜讗诐 讬爪讗转 讞讬讬讘转 讞讟讗转 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 驻讜讟专 讘讻讜讘诇转 讜讘爪诇讜讞讬转 砖诇 驻诇讬讬讟讜谉

And to what statement of Rabbi Meir is the Gemara referring? As it was taught in a baraita: A woman may not go out on Shabbat with a key that is in her hand, and if she went out she is liable to bring a sin-offering; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Eliezer exempts a woman who goes out with a bundle of fragrant herbs and with a flask of balsam oil [palyaton].

讻讜讘诇转 诪讗谉 讚讻专 砖诪讛

The Gemara finds the statement of Rabbi Eliezer difficult: A bundle of fragrant herbs; who mentioned anything about that? Rabbi Meir did not mention a bundle of herbs; why did Rabbi Eliezer mention it in his response?

讞住讜专讬 诪讞住专讗 讜讛讻讬 拽转谞讬 讜讻谉 讘讻讜讘诇转 讜讻谉 讘爪诇讜讞讬转 砖诇 驻诇讬讬讟讜谉 诇讗 转爪讗 讜讗诐 讬爪讗讛 讞讬讬讘转 讞讟讗转 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 驻讜讟专 讘讻讜讘诇转 讜讘爪诇讜讞讬转 砖诇 驻诇讬讬讟讜谉 讘诪讛 讚讘专讬诐 讗诪讜专讬诐 讻砖讬砖 讘讛诐 讘讜砖诐 讗讘诇 讗讬谉 讘讛诐 讘讜砖诐 讞讬讬讘转

The Gemara answers that the baraita is incomplete and it teaches the following: And likewise, with a bundle of fragrant herbs, and likewise with a flask of balsam oil she may not go out, and if she went out she is liable to bring a sin-offering; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Eliezer exempts in the cases of a bundle of fragrant herbs and a flask of balsam oil. In what case is this statement said? In a case where the vessels have perfume in them; however, in a case where they do not have perfume in them, she is liable for carrying the flask out into the public domain on Shabbat.

讗诪专 专讘 讗讚讗 讘专 讗讛讘讛 讝讗转 讗讜诪专转 讛诪讜爪讬讗 讗讜讻诇讬谉 驻讞讜转 诪讻砖讬注讜专 讘讻诇讬 讞讬讬讘 讚讛讗 讗讬谉 讘讛 讘讜砖诐 讻驻讞讜转 诪讻砖讬注讜专 讘讻诇讬 讚诪讬 讜拽转谞讬 讞讬讬讘转

Rav Adda bar Ahava said: That is to say that one who carries out a measure of food that is less than the measure that determines liability on Shabbat, but he does so in a vessel, he is liable. Although he is not liable for carrying the food out into the public domain, he is liable for carrying out the vessel. In that case, the vessel is not subordinate to the food, and therefore it is significant. Since the case of the flask in which there is no perfume is comparable to the case in which there is less than the required measurement of food in a vessel, and it was taught in the case of the flask that she is liable even though the fragrance of the perfume remains in the vessel, it stands to reason that one who carries a vessel containing less than a measure of food is also liable.

专讘 讗砖讬 讗诪专 讘注诇诪讗 讗讬诪讗 诇讱 驻讟讜专 讜砖讗谞讬 讛讻讗 讚诇讬转讬讛 诇诪诪砖讗 讻诇诇:

Rav Ashi said: That is no proof because, in general, I would say to you that he is exempt in a case where there is less than the measure that determines liability for food. However, it is different here, in the case of the empty flask of perfume as, in that case, there is no substance at all. Because the vessel is completely empty, he is liable for carrying the flask.

讜专讗砖讬转 砖诪谞讬诐 讬诪砖讞讜 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讝讛 驻诇讬讬讟讜谉

Related to the mention of perfume, the Gemara cites several statements. It is stated: 鈥淭hat drink wine in mizrekei, and anoint themselves with the chief ointments; but they are not grieved for the hurt of Joseph鈥 (Amos 6:6). Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: 鈥The chief ointments鈥 is balsam oil.

诪转讬讘 专讘 讬讜住祝 讗祝 注诇 驻诇讬讬讟讜谉 讙讝专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘谉 讘讘讗 讜诇讗 讛讜讚讜 诇讜 讜讗讬 讗诪专转 诪砖讜诐 转注谞讜讙 讗诪讗讬 诇讗 讛讜讚讜 诇讜

Rav Yosef raised an objection from the Tosefta: Rabbi Yehuda ben Bava issued a decree on balsam oil as well, prohibiting its use due to mourning over the destruction of the Temple, and the Sages did not agree with him. And if you say that balsam oil is the chief ointment cited in the verse, and the decree was issued due to the pleasure it provides, why didn鈥檛 the Sages agree with his decree? Doesn鈥檛 the verse criticize those who do not feel the pain of the people?

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讜诇讟注诪讬讱 讛讗 讚讻转讬讘 讛砖转讬诐 讘诪讝专拽讬 讬讬谉 专讘讬 讗诪讬 讜专讘讬 讗住讬 讞讚 讗诪专 拽谞讬砖拽谞讬谉 讜讞讚 讗诪专 砖诪讝专拽讬谉 讻讜住讜转讬讛谉 讝讛 诇讝讛 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讚讗住讬专 讜讛讗 专讘讛 讘专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗讬拽诇注 诇讘讬 专讬砖 讙诇讜转讗 讜砖转讛 讘拽谞讬砖拽谞讬谉 讜诇讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讜诇讗 诪讬讚讬

Abaye said to him: And according to your reasoning, that which is written in the same verse: 鈥淭hat drink wine in mizrekei鈥; Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Asi disagree over the meaning of the term mizrekei. One said: They are multi-spouted vessels [kenishkanin], wine vessels with spouts from which several people can drink at one time, and one said that they throw [mezarkin] their cups to one another in joy and jest. Is that also prohibited? Didn鈥檛 Rabba bar Rav Huna visit the house of the Exilarch and see the Exilarch drink from a multi-spouted vessel, and Rabba bar Rav Huna did not say anything to him?

讗诇讗 讻诇 诪讬讚讬 讚讗讬转 讘讬讛 转注谞讜讙 讜讗讬转 讘讬讛 砖诪讞讛 讙讝专讜 专讘谞谉 讗讘诇 诪讬讚讬 讚讗讬转 讘讬讛 转注谞讜讙 讜诇讬转 讘讬讛 砖诪讞讛 诇讗 讙讝专讜 专讘谞谉:

Rather, the principle is as follows: With regard to any matter in which there is an element of pleasure and in which there is an element of joy, the Sages issued a decree prohibiting it due to mourning over the destruction of the Temple. However, with regard to a matter in which there is an element of pleasure and in which there is no element of joy, the Sages did not issue a decree. Since there is no element of joy in balsam oil, even though it is precious and pleasurable, they did not issue a decree prohibiting it.

讛砖讻讘讬诐 注诇 诪讟讜转 砖谉 讜住专讞讬诐 注诇 注专砖讜转诐 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 诪诇诪讚 砖讛讬讜 诪砖转讬谞讬谉 诪讬诐 讘驻谞讬 诪讟讜转讬讛谉 注专讜诪讬诐

The Gemara interprets additional verses related to the critique of the leadership of Samaria. It is stated: 鈥淭hat lie upon beds of ivory and stretch [seru岣m] upon their couches and eat the lambs out of the flock and the calves out of the midst of the stall鈥 (Amos 6:4). Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi 岣nina, said: This term, seru岣m, interpreted homiletically, teaches that their sin was that they would urinate before their beds while naked.

诪讙讚祝 讘讛 专讘讬 讗讘讛讜 讗讬 讛讻讬 讛讬讬谞讜 讚讻转讬讘 诇讻谉 注转讛 讬讙诇讜 讘专讗砖 讙诇讬诐 诪砖讜诐 讚诪砖转讬谞讬谉 诪讬诐 讘驻谞讬 诪讟讜转讬讛诐 注专讜诪讬诐 讬讙诇讜 讘专讗砖 讙讜诇讬诐

Rabbi Abbahu ridiculed that interpretation: If so, that this is the meaning of the term seru岣m, is this the meaning of that which is written: 鈥淭herefore now they shall go into exile at the head of the exiles and the revelry of those seru岣m shall pass away鈥 (Amos 6:7), because they urinate before their beds while naked they will be exiled at the head of exiles? Although doing so is revolting, a punishment so severe is certainly excessive.

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讛讜 讗诇讜 讘谞讬 讗讚诐 砖讛讬讜 讗讜讻诇讬诐 讜砖讜转讬诐 讝讛 注诐 讝讛 讜讚讜讘拽讬谉 诪讟讜转讬讛谉 讝讜 讘讝讜 讜诪讞诇讬驻讬谉 谞砖讜转讬讛谉 讝讛 注诐 讝讛 讜诪住专讬讞讬谉 注专住讜转诐 讘砖讻讘转 讝专注 砖讗讬谞讜 砖诇讛谉

Rather, Rabbi Abbahu said: This verse is referring to a grave sin. These are people who would eat and drink with each other, and join their beds to each other, and swap wives with each other, and defile their beds with semen that was not theirs. That is the meaning of seru岣m upon their couches. For those severe transgressions they deserved to be exiled at the head of exiles.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讛讜 讜讗诪专讬 诇讛 讘诪转谞讬转讗 转谞讗 砖诇砖讛 讚讘专讬诐 诪讘讬讗讬谉 讗转 讛讗讚诐 诇讬讚讬 注谞讬讜转 讜讗诇讜 讛谉 讛诪砖转讬谉 诪讬诐 讘驻谞讬 诪讟转讜 注专讜诐 讜诪讝诇讝诇 讘谞讟讬诇转 讬讚讬诐 讜砖讗砖转讜 诪拽诇诇转讜 讘驻谞讬讜

On a related note, Rabbi Abbahu said, and some say it was taught in a baraita: Three matters bring a person to a state of poverty as a divine punishment from Heaven: One who urinates before his bed while naked, and one who demeans the ritual washing of the hands, and one whose wife curses him in his presence.

讛诪砖转讬谉 诪讬诐 讘驻谞讬 诪讟转讜 注专讜诐 讗诪专 专讘讗 诇讗 讗诪专谉 讗诇讗 讚诪讛讚专 讗驻讬讛 诇驻讜专讬讬讛 讗讘诇 诇讘专讗讬 诇讬转 诇谉 讘讛

The Gemara explains: With regard to one who urinates before his bed while naked, Rava said: We only said this prohibition in a case where he turns his face toward his bed and urinates toward it; however, if he turns his face and urinates toward the outer portion of the room, we have no problem with it.

讜诪讛讚专 讗驻讬讛 诇驻讜专讬讬讛 谞诪讬 诇讗 讗诪专谉 讗诇讗 诇讗专注讗 讗讘诇 讘诪谞讗 诇讬转 诇谉 讘讛

And where one turns his face toward his bed, too, we only said this prohibition in a case where he urinates on the ground; however, if he urinates into a vessel, we have no problem with it since that is not considered disgusting.

讜诪讝诇讝诇 讘谞讟讬诇转 讬讚讬诐 讗诪专 专讘讗 诇讗 讗诪专谉 讗诇讗 讚诇讗 诪砖讗 讬讚讬讛 讻诇诇 讗讘诇 诪砖讗 讜诇讗 诪砖讗 诇讬转 诇谉 讘讛

With regard to one who demeans the ritual washing of the hands, Rava said: We only said this statement in a case where he does not wash his hands at all; however, if he washes his hands and does not wash them with a significant amount of water, we have no problem with it.

讜诇讗讜 诪诇转讗 讛讬讗 讚讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 讗谞讗 诪砖讗讬 诪诇讗 讞驻谞讬 诪讬讗 讜讬讛讘讜 诇讬 诪诇讗 讞驻谞讬 讟讬讘讜转讗

The Gemara notes: And that is not so, as Rav 岣sda said: I wash my hands with handfuls of water and they gave me in reward handfuls of prosperity. Apparently, in order to garner the benefits of ritual washing of his hands, one should use a significant amount of water.

讜砖讗砖转讜 诪拽诇诇转讜 讘驻谞讬讜 讗诪专 专讘讗 注诇 注住拽讬 转讻砖讬讟讬讛 讜讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讛讜讗 讚讗讬转 诇讬讛 讜诇讗 注讘讬讚:

With regard to one whose wife curses him in his presence, Rava said: This is referring to a case where she curses him over matters relating to her ornaments, i.e., she complains that he does not provide her with jewelry. The Gemara comments: And that applies only when he has the resources to buy her jewelry but does not do so; however, if he does not have sufficient resources he need not be concerned.

讚专砖 专讘讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 注讬诇讗讬 诪讗讬 讚讻转讬讘 讜讬讗诪专 讛壮 讬注谉 讻讬 讙讘讛讜 讘谞讜转 爪讬讜谉 砖讛讬讜 诪讛诇讻讜转 讘拽讜诪讛 讝拽讜驻讛 讜转诇讻谞讛 谞讟讜讬讜转 讙专讜谉 砖讛讬讜 诪讛诇讻讜转 注拽讘 讘爪讚 讙讜讚诇 讜诪砖拽专讜转 注讬谞讬诐 讚讛讜讛 诪诇讗谉 讻讜讞诇讗 诇注讬谞讬讬讛讜 讜诪专诪讝谉 讛诇讜讱 讜讟驻讜祝 砖讛讬讜 诪讛诇讻讜转 讗专讜讻讛 讘爪讚 拽爪专讛 讜讘专讙诇讬讛谉 转注讻住谞讛 讗诪专 专讘 讬爪讞拽 讚讘讬 专讘讬 讗诪讬 诪诇诪讚 砖诪讟讬诇讜转 诪讜专 讜讗驻专住诪讜谉 讘诪谞注诇讬讛谉 讜诪讛诇讻讜转 讘砖讜拽讬 讬专讜砖诇讬诐 讜讻讬讜谉 砖诪讙讬注讜转 讗爪诇 讘讞讜专讬 讬砖专讗诇 讘讜注讟讜转 讘拽专拽注 讜诪转讬讝讜转 注诇讬讛诐 讜诪讻谞讬住讜转 讘讛谉 讬爪专 讛专注 讻讗专住 讘讻注讜住

Since the Gemara spoke of sins in the First Temple era, it continues to explain other verses with similar content. Rava, son of Rav Ilai, interpreted the following verse homiletically. What is the meaning of that which is written: 鈥淭he Lord says because the daughters of Zion are haughty and walk with outstretched necks and wanton eyes, walking and mincing as they go and making a tinkling with their feet鈥 (Isaiah 3:16)?
鈥淏ecause the daughters of Zion are haughty,鈥 indicates that they would walk with upright stature and carry themselves in an immodest way.
鈥淎nd walk with outstretched necks,鈥 indicates that they would walk in small steps, heel to toe, so onlookers would notice them.
鈥淲anton eyes,鈥 indicates that they would fill their eyes with blue eye shadow and beckon.
鈥淲alking and mincing [tafof] as they go,鈥 indicates that the wealthy women would walk a tall woman alongside a short one so that the tall woman would stand out. This is derived from the interchangeability of the letters tet and tzadi; tzafo, meaning, in this case, to be seen.
鈥淢aking a tinkling [te鈥檃kasna] with their feet,鈥 Rabbi Yitz岣k from the school of Rabbi Ami said: This teaches that they would place myrrh and balsam in their shoes and would walk in the marketplaces of Jerusalem. And once they approached a place where the young men of Israel were congregated, they would stamp their feet on the ground and splash the perfume toward them and instill the evil inclination into them like venom of a viper [ke鈥檈res bakhos].

诪讗讬 驻讜专注谞讜转讬讛诐 讻讚讚专讬砖 专讘讛 讘专 注讜诇讗 讜讛讬讛 转讞转 讘砖诐 诪拽 讬讛讬讛 诪拽讜诐 砖讛讬讜 诪转讘砖诪讜转 讘讜 谞注砖讛 谞诪拽讬诐 谞诪拽讬诐 讜转讞转 讞讙讜专讛 谞拽驻讛 诪拽讜诐 砖讛讬讜 讞讙讜专讜转 讘爪诇爪讜诇 谞注砖讛 谞拽驻讬诐 谞拽驻讬诐 讜转讞转 诪注砖讛 诪拽砖讛 拽专讞讛 诪拽讜诐 砖讛讬讜 诪转拽砖讟讜转 讘讜 谞注砖讛 拽专讞讬诐 拽专讞讬诐 讜转讞转 驻转讬讙讬诇 诪讞讙专转 砖拽 驻转讞讬诐 讛诪讘讬讗讬谉 诇讬讚讬 讙讬诇讛 讬讛讬讜 诇诪讞讙专转 砖拽 讻讬 转讞转 讬驻讬 讗诪专 专讘讗 讛讬讬谞讜 讚讗诪专讬 讗讬谞砖讬 讞诇讜驻讬 砖讜驻专讗 讻讬讘讗

What was their punishment for these sins? As Rabba bar Ulla taught: 鈥淎nd it shall come to pass that instead of a sweet smell, there shall be a stench; and instead of a belt, a rope; and instead of well-set hair, baldness; and instead of a fine dress, a girding of sackcloth; instead of beauty, a brand鈥 (Isaiah 3:24).
He explains: 鈥淎nd it shall come to pass that instead of a sweet smell there shall be a stench,鈥 indicates that the place that they would perfume became decaying sores.
鈥淎nd instead of a sash, a rope [nikpe],鈥 indicates that the place where they were girded with a sash became covered with many bruises [nekafim].
鈥淎nd instead of well-set hair, baldness,鈥 indicates that the place where they would style their hair became bald spots.
鈥淎nd instead of a fine dress [petigil], a girding of sackcloth,鈥 indicates that the orifices [peta岣m] that lead to pleasure [gil] will become a place for a girding of sackcloth.
鈥淚nstead of beauty, a brand [ki],鈥 Rava said: That is the popular expression that people say: Instead of beauty, a sore [kiva].

(讜住驻讞) 讛壮 拽讚拽讚 讘谞讜转 爪讬讜谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 诪诇诪讚 砖驻专讞讛 讘讛谉 爪专注转 讻转讬讘 讛讻讗 讜砖驻讞 讜讻转讬讘 讛转诐 诇砖讗转 讜诇住驻讞转

With regard to a different verse: 鈥淭he Lord will smite with a scab the crown of the head of the daughters of Zion and the Lord will lay bare their secret parts鈥 (Isaiah 3:17). And the Lord will smite with a scab the crown of the heads of the daughters of Zion; Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi 岣nina, said: This teaches that there was an outbreak of leprosy among them. It is written here, scab [sippa岣], and it is written there, among the types of leprosy: 鈥淔or a sore, and for a scab [sappa岣t], and for a bright spot鈥 (Leviticus 14:56).

讜讛壮 驻转讛谉 讬注专讛 专讘 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讞讚 讗诪专 砖谞砖驻讻讜 讻拽讬转讜谉 讜讞讚 讗诪专 砖谞注砖讜 驻转讞讬讛谉 讻讬注专

With regard to the verse: And the Lord will lay bare their secret parts [pot鈥檋en ye鈥檃reh], Rav and Shmuel disagree. One says: It means that they, i.e., their innards, were poured out [ye鈥檃reh] like a jug. And one says: That their orifices [pit岣ihen] were covered with hair as thick as a forest [ya鈥檃r].

讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 讗谞砖讬 讬专讜砖诇讬诐 讗谞砖讬 砖讞抓 讛讬讜 讗讚诐 讗讜诪专 诇讞讘专讜 讘诪讛 住注讚转 讛讬讜诐 讘驻转 注诪讬诇讛 讗讜 讘驻转 砖讗讬谞讛 注诪讬诇讛 讘讬讬谉 讙讜专讚诇讬 讗讜

On the topic of the sins of Jerusalem and the abundance that existed before its destruction, Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: The people of Jerusalem were people of arrogance. They would couch their crude behavior in euphemisms. A person would say to another: On what did you dine today? Well-kneaded bread or bread that is not well-kneaded? On white wine or

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 61-67 – Daf Yomi: One Week at a Time

This week we will review Daf 61-67. We will continue to discuss what men and women can go out with...
talking talmud_square

Shabbat 62: Rabbi Meir: Tefillin Are Not a Positive, Time-bound Commandment (Wait, what?!)

First, defining some terms of armor. Then, a new mishnah introduced several topics: starting with balsam oil, and the absence...

Shabbat 62

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Shabbat 62

讜讛转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讗讜砖注讬讗 讗讜诪专 讜讘诇讘讚 砖诇讗 讬讗讞讝谞讜 讘讬讚讜 讜讬注讘讬专谞讜 讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 讘专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐

But wasn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita that Rabbi Oshaya says with regard to an amulet: As long as he does not hold it in his hand and carry it four cubits in the public domain? Apparently, even with regard to an amulet, there is a distinction between wearing it and carrying it.

[讗诇讗] 讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讘诪讞讜驻讛 注讜专

Rather, with what are we dealing here? With an amulet that is covered in leather. Since the writing itself is covered, the name of God is not degraded when the amulet is brought into the bathroom with him.

讜讛专讬 转驻讬诇讬谉 讚诪讞讜驻讛 注讜专 讜转谞讬讗 讛谞讻谞住 诇讘讬转 讛讻住讗 讞讜诇抓 转驻讬诇讬谉 讘专讞讜拽 讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 讜谞讻谞住

The Gemara objects. There is writing on the scrolls of phylacteries, which is covered in the leather of boxes housing the scrolls, and nevertheless it was taught in a baraita: One who enters a bathroom while wearing phylacteries must remove the phylacteries at a distance of four cubits and only then enter. There is no halakhic difference whether or not the writing is covered.

讛转诐 诪砖讜诐 砖讬谉 讚讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 砖讬谉 砖诇 转驻讬诇讬谉 讛诇讻讛 诇诪砖讛 诪住讬谞讬 讜讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讚诇转 砖诇 转驻讬诇讬谉 讛诇讻讛 诇诪砖讛 诪住讬谞讬 讜讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讬讜讚 砖诇 转驻讬诇讬谉 讛诇讻讛 诇诪砖讛 诪住讬谞讬:

The Gemara rejects this: There, with regard to phylacteries, the prohibition to enter the bathroom is not due to the sacred writing on the scrolls inside the phylacteries. Rather, it is due to the letter shin that protrudes from the leather of the boxes housing the scroll in the phylacteries of the head, as Abaye said: The source of the requirement of the shin of the phylacteries is a halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai. It is required by Torah law. And, Abaye said: The knot in the shape of the letter dalet in the straps of the phylacteries of the head is a halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai. And, Abaye said: The letter yod of the phylacteries is a halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai. It is due to those letters that one must safeguard the sanctity of the phylacteries and refrain from taking them into the bathroom.

讜诇讗 讘砖专讬讜谉 讜诇讗 讘拽住讚讗 讜诇讗 讘诪讙驻讬讬诐:

We learned in the mishna: And he may neither go out with shiryon, nor with a kasda, nor with maggafayim. These terms were not understood, and therefore the Gemara explains them:

砖专讬讜谉 讝专讚讗 拽住讚讗 讗诪专 专讘 住谞讜讗专转讗 诪讙驻讬讬诐 讗诪专 专讘 驻讝诪拽讬:

Shiryon is a coat of mail [zerada], armor made of scales. Kasda: Rav said that it is a leather hat [sanvarta] worn under a metal helmet. Maggafayim: Rav said they are leg armor worn beneath the knee.

诪转谞讬壮 诇讗 转爪讗 讗砖讛 讘诪讞讟 讛谞拽讜讘讛 讜诇讗 讘讟讘注转 砖讬砖 注诇讬讛 讞讜转诐 讜诇讗 讘讻讜诇讬讗专 讜诇讗 讘讻讜讘诇转 讜诇讗 讘爪诇讜讞讬转 砖诇 驻诇讬讬讟讜谉

MISHNA: A woman may neither go out to the public domain with a perforated needle, i.e., a standard needle with an eye, nor with a ring that has a seal on it, nor with a kulyar, nor with a kovelet, the identity of which will be discussed in the Gemara, nor with a flask of balsam oil.

讜讗诐 讬爪转讛 讞讬讬讘转 讞讟讗转 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讜讞讻诪讬诐 驻讜讟专讬谉 讘讻讜讘诇转 讜讘爪诇讜讞讬转 砖诇 驻诇讬讬讟讜谉:

And if she did go out into the public domain, she is liable to bring a sin-offering; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir, who holds that in doing so she violated the Torah prohibition of carrying a burden in the public domain on Shabbat. And the Rabbis exempt one who goes out on Shabbat with a kovelet and with a flask of balsam oil. In their opinion, these are ornaments, and therefore they do not fundamentally violate the Torah prohibition of carrying in the public domain on Shabbat.

讙诪壮 讗诪专 注讜诇讗 讜讞讬诇讜驻讬讛谉 讘讗讬砖 讗诇诪讗 拽住讘专 注讜诇讗 讻诇 诪讬讚讬 讚讞讝讬 诇讗讬砖 诇讗 讞讝讬 诇讗砖讛 讜诪讬讚讬 讚讞讝讬 诇讗砖讛 诇讗 讞讝讬 诇讗讬砖

GEMARA: With regard to that which we learned in the mishna that a woman may not go out on Shabbat with a ring that has a seal, and by inference that she may go out with a ring without a seal, Ulla said: And the reverse of these halakhot is true with regard to a man. A man who wears a ring with a seal in the public domain is exempt. However, if he wears a ring without a seal, he is liable to bring a sin-offering as it is not considered an ornament for a man. Based on that statement, the Gemara concludes: Apparently, Ulla holds that every object that is suitable for a man is not suitable for a woman, and an object that is suitable for a woman is not suitable for a man.

诪转讬讘 专讘 讬讜住祝 讛专讜注讬诐 讬讜爪讗讬谉 讘砖拽讬谉 讜诇讗 讛专讜注讬诐 讘诇讘讚 讗诪专讜 讗诇讗 讻诇 讗讚诐 讗诇讗 砖讚专讻谉 砖诇 讛专讜注讬诐 诇爪讗转 讘砖拽讬谉

Rav Yosef raised an objection from the Tosefta: Shepherds may go out on Shabbat in garments made of sacks. And not with regard to the shepherds alone did the Sages say that they are permitted to go out in sacks on Shabbat; rather, any person may do so. However, the Sages taught the halakha with regard to shepherds because it is the standard practice of shepherds to go out in sacks. Apparently, although a sack is not a typical garment for most people, it is permitted even for one who is not a shepherd and would not generally wear it. Based on the same principle, although men do not generally wear women鈥檚 ornaments and women do not generally wear men鈥檚 ornaments, since occasionally a man might wear an ornament belonging to a woman or vice versa, each should be permitted to go out into the public domain with the ornament of the other.

[讗诇讗] 讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 拽住讘专 注讜诇讗 谞砖讬诐 注诐 讘驻谞讬 注爪诪谉 讛谉

Rather, Rav Yosef said: Ulla holds that women are a people unto themselves. The difference between the standard practice of men and women is greater than the difference between the standard practice of practitioners of different professions.

讗讬转讬讘讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讛诪讜爪讗 转驻讬诇讬谉 诪讻谞讬住谉 讝讜讙 讝讜讙 讗讞讚 讛讗讬砖 讜讗讞讚 讛讗砖讛 讜讗讬 讗诪专转 谞砖讬诐 注诐 讘驻谞讬 注爪诪谉 讛谉 讜讛讗 诪爪讜转 注砖讛 砖讛讝诪谉 讙专诪讗 讛讜讗 讜讻诇 诪爪讜转 注砖讛 砖讛讝诪谉 讙专诪讗 谞砖讬诐 驻讟讜专讜转

Abaye raised an objection to Rav Yosef鈥檚 statement from the Tosefta: One who finds phylacteries outside of the city on Shabbat should don them and bring them into the city one pair at a time. This applies to both a man and a woman. And if you say that women are a people unto themselves, isn鈥檛 the mitzva to don phylacteries a time-bound, positive mitzva, as there are times when the mitzva to don phylacteries is not in effect? And the following is a halakhic principle: Women are exempt from every time-bound, positive mitzva. If, in fact, the clothing and ornaments of a man are not suitable for a woman under any circumstances, why is a woman permitted to don the phylacteries and bring them into the city on Shabbat? Shouldn鈥檛 that be considered a prohibited act of carrying?

讛转诐 拽住讘专 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 诇讬诇讛 讝诪谉 转驻讬诇讬谉 讛讜讗 讜砖讘转 讝诪谉 转驻讬诇讬谉 讛讜讗 讛讜讛 诇讬讛 诪爪讜转 注砖讛 砖诇讗 讛讝诪谉 讙专诪讗 讜讻诇 诪爪讜转 注砖讛 砖诇讗 讛讝诪谉 讙专诪讗 谞砖讬诐 讞讬讬讘讜转

The Gemara answers: There, with regard to phylacteries, Rabbi Meir holds that night is an appropriate time to don phylacteries, and Shabbat and Festivals are similarly an appropriate time to don phylacteries. Consequently, the mitzva of phylacteries is a positive mitzva that is not time bound; and in every positive mitzva that is not time bound, women are obligated. Therefore, women are permitted to don the phylacteries and bring them into the city.

讜讛讗 讛讜爪讗讛 讻诇讗讞专 讬讚 讛讬讗

With regard to Rabbi Meir鈥檚 ruling in the mishna that a woman is liable by Torah law if she goes out into the public domain wearing a ring with a seal, the Gemara asks: Isn鈥檛 it considered carrying out in a backhanded manner? A ring with a seal is not an ornament for a woman; it is an object like any other. One typically carries objects holding them in his hand. Wearing an object around one鈥檚 finger is atypical. There is no Torah prohibition violated when a labor is performed in an atypical manner.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 讘讗砖讛 讙讝讘专讬转 注住拽讬谞谉 讗诪专 专讘讛 (讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉) 转专爪转 讗砖讛 讗讬砖 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专

Rabbi Yirmeya said that we are dealing in the mishna with a woman who is a treasurer for charity. A woman with that occupation typically wears a ring with a seal on her finger in order to perform her job. She does not, though, wear it as an ornament. Rabba bar bar 岣na said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said: You answered and explained why, in the case of a woman, she would be liable to bring a sin-offering. However, in the case of a man who wore a ring without a seal, what is there to say? Why should he be liable?

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 驻注诪讬诐 砖讗讚诐 谞讜转谉 诇讗砖转讜 讟讘注转 砖讬砖 注诇讬讛 讞讜转诐 诇讛讜诇讬讻讛 诇拽讜驻住讗 讜诪谞讬讞转讛 讘讬讚讛 注讚 砖诪讙注转 诇拽讜驻住讗 讜驻注诪讬诐 砖讛讗砖讛 谞讜转谞转 诇讘注诇讛 讟讘注转 砖讗讬谉 注诇讬讛 讞讜转诐 诇讛讜诇讬讻讛 讗爪诇 讗讜诪谉 诇转拽谉 讜诪谞讬讞讛 讘讬讚讜 注讚 砖诪讙讬注 讗爪诇 讗讜诪谉:

Rather, Rava said that there is a different reason: Sometimes a person gives his wife a ring that has a seal on it to take it to his house and place it in a box for safekeeping, and, in order to ensure that she does not lose the ring, the woman places it in on her hand, i.e., on her finger, until she reaches the box. And, likewise, sometimes a woman gives her husband a ring that does not have a seal on it to take it to a craftsman to repair it, and the husband places it on his hand, i.e., on his finger, until he reaches the craftsman. The purpose of wearing these rings is not for ornamentation. Nevertheless, it is considered a typical manner of carrying them.

讜诇讗 讘讻讜诇讬讗专 讜诇讗 讘讻讜讘诇转: 诪讗讬 讻讜诇讬讗专 讗诪专 专讘 诪讻讘谞转讗 讻讜讘诇转 讗诪专 专讘 讞讜诪专转讗 讚驻讬诇讜谉 讜讻谉 讗诪专 专讘 讗住讬 讞讜诪专转讗 讚驻讬诇讜谉

We learned in the mishna: Nor with a kulyar, nor with a kovelet. The Gemara asks: What is a kulyar? Rav said: A brooch with which a woman fastens the collar of her garment. Kovelet: Rav said that it is a bundle of fragrant herbs [pilon]. And, similarly, Rav Asi said: A bundle of fragrant herbs.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 诇讗 转爪讗 讘讻讜讘诇转 讜讗诐 讬爪转讛 讞讬讬讘转 讞讟讗转 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 诇讗 转爪讗 讜讗诐 讬爪转讛 驻讟讜专讛 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 讬讜爪讗讛 讗砖讛 讘讻讜讘诇转 诇讻转讞诇讛

The Sages taught in a baraita: A woman may not go out on Shabbat with a bundle of fragrant herbs, and if she did go out she is liable to bring a sin-offering, as she violated a Torah prohibition; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. And the Rabbis say: She may not go out ab initio; however, if she went out, she is exempt. Rabbi Eliezer says: A woman may go out with a bundle of fragrant herbs even ab initio.

讘诪讗讬 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 住讘专 诪砖讗讜讬 讛讜讗 讜专讘谞谉 住讘专讬 转讻砖讬讟 讛讜讗 讜讚讬诇诪讗 砖诇驻讗 讜诪讞讜讬讗 讜讗转讬讗 诇讗讬转讜讬讬讛 讜专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 住讘专 诪讗谉 讚专讻讛 诇诪讬专诪讬讛 讗砖讛 砖专讬讞讛 专注 讗砖讛 砖专讬讞讛 专注 诇讗 砖诇驻讗 讜诪讞讜讬讗 讜诇讗 讗转讬讗 诇讗转讜讬讬讛 讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 讘专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐

The Gemara asks: With regard to what principle do they disagree? Rabbi Meir holds that it is a burden. Therefore, one who takes it out into the public domain on Shabbat is liable to bring a sin-offering. And the Rabbis hold that it is an ornament. Nevertheless, they prohibited going out with it ab initio due to concern lest she remove the bundle of herbs from its place, and show it to others, and come to carry it in the public domain. And Rabbi Eliezer holds: Whose practice is it to place fragrant herbs on herself? A woman whose odor is foul. But a woman whose odor is foul does not remove and show the bundle to others because, by doing so, her odor will be detected, a situation that she would prefer to avoid. And, therefore she will not come to carry it four cubits in the public domain.

讜讛转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 驻讜讟专 讘讻讜讘诇转 讜讘爪诇讜讞讬转 砖诇 驻诇讬讬讟讜谉

This baraita cites the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, who permits, even ab initio, going out into the public domain with a bundle of herbs. The Gemara asks: Wasn鈥檛 it taught in another baraita: Rabbi Eliezer exempts a woman who goes out on Shabbat with a bundle of herbs and with a flask of balsam oil? With regard to the halakhot of Shabbat, exempt means that although it is not prohibited by Torah law, it is prohibited ab initio by rabbinic law.

诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 讻讬 拽讗讬 讗讚专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讛讗 讻讬 拽讗讬 讗讚专讘谞谉 讻讬 拽讗讬 讗讚专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讚讗诪专 讞讬讬讘 讞讟讗转 讗诪专 诇讬讛 驻讟讜专 讻讬 拽讗讬 讗讚专讘谞谉 讚讗诪专讬 驻讟讜专 讗讘诇 讗住讜专 讗诪专 讗讬讛讜 诪讜转专 诇讻转讞诇讛

The Gemara answers: This is not difficult. When Rabbi Eliezer made this statement, it was when he was addressing the statement of Rabbi Meir. When Rabbi Eliezer made that statement, it was when he was addressing the statement of the Rabbis. To clarify: When he was addressing the statement of Rabbi Meir, who said that she is liable to bring a sin-offering, he said to him that she is exempt from bringing the sacrifice. When he was addressing the statement of the Rabbis, who said that she is exempt but it is prohibited ab initio, he said that it is permitted even ab initio.

讜诪讗讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讚转谞讬讗 诇讗 转爪讗 讗砖讛 讘诪驻转讞 砖讘讬讚讛 讜讗诐 讬爪讗转 讞讬讬讘转 讞讟讗转 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 驻讜讟专 讘讻讜讘诇转 讜讘爪诇讜讞讬转 砖诇 驻诇讬讬讟讜谉

And to what statement of Rabbi Meir is the Gemara referring? As it was taught in a baraita: A woman may not go out on Shabbat with a key that is in her hand, and if she went out she is liable to bring a sin-offering; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Eliezer exempts a woman who goes out with a bundle of fragrant herbs and with a flask of balsam oil [palyaton].

讻讜讘诇转 诪讗谉 讚讻专 砖诪讛

The Gemara finds the statement of Rabbi Eliezer difficult: A bundle of fragrant herbs; who mentioned anything about that? Rabbi Meir did not mention a bundle of herbs; why did Rabbi Eliezer mention it in his response?

讞住讜专讬 诪讞住专讗 讜讛讻讬 拽转谞讬 讜讻谉 讘讻讜讘诇转 讜讻谉 讘爪诇讜讞讬转 砖诇 驻诇讬讬讟讜谉 诇讗 转爪讗 讜讗诐 讬爪讗讛 讞讬讬讘转 讞讟讗转 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 驻讜讟专 讘讻讜讘诇转 讜讘爪诇讜讞讬转 砖诇 驻诇讬讬讟讜谉 讘诪讛 讚讘专讬诐 讗诪讜专讬诐 讻砖讬砖 讘讛诐 讘讜砖诐 讗讘诇 讗讬谉 讘讛诐 讘讜砖诐 讞讬讬讘转

The Gemara answers that the baraita is incomplete and it teaches the following: And likewise, with a bundle of fragrant herbs, and likewise with a flask of balsam oil she may not go out, and if she went out she is liable to bring a sin-offering; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Eliezer exempts in the cases of a bundle of fragrant herbs and a flask of balsam oil. In what case is this statement said? In a case where the vessels have perfume in them; however, in a case where they do not have perfume in them, she is liable for carrying the flask out into the public domain on Shabbat.

讗诪专 专讘 讗讚讗 讘专 讗讛讘讛 讝讗转 讗讜诪专转 讛诪讜爪讬讗 讗讜讻诇讬谉 驻讞讜转 诪讻砖讬注讜专 讘讻诇讬 讞讬讬讘 讚讛讗 讗讬谉 讘讛 讘讜砖诐 讻驻讞讜转 诪讻砖讬注讜专 讘讻诇讬 讚诪讬 讜拽转谞讬 讞讬讬讘转

Rav Adda bar Ahava said: That is to say that one who carries out a measure of food that is less than the measure that determines liability on Shabbat, but he does so in a vessel, he is liable. Although he is not liable for carrying the food out into the public domain, he is liable for carrying out the vessel. In that case, the vessel is not subordinate to the food, and therefore it is significant. Since the case of the flask in which there is no perfume is comparable to the case in which there is less than the required measurement of food in a vessel, and it was taught in the case of the flask that she is liable even though the fragrance of the perfume remains in the vessel, it stands to reason that one who carries a vessel containing less than a measure of food is also liable.

专讘 讗砖讬 讗诪专 讘注诇诪讗 讗讬诪讗 诇讱 驻讟讜专 讜砖讗谞讬 讛讻讗 讚诇讬转讬讛 诇诪诪砖讗 讻诇诇:

Rav Ashi said: That is no proof because, in general, I would say to you that he is exempt in a case where there is less than the measure that determines liability for food. However, it is different here, in the case of the empty flask of perfume as, in that case, there is no substance at all. Because the vessel is completely empty, he is liable for carrying the flask.

讜专讗砖讬转 砖诪谞讬诐 讬诪砖讞讜 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讝讛 驻诇讬讬讟讜谉

Related to the mention of perfume, the Gemara cites several statements. It is stated: 鈥淭hat drink wine in mizrekei, and anoint themselves with the chief ointments; but they are not grieved for the hurt of Joseph鈥 (Amos 6:6). Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: 鈥The chief ointments鈥 is balsam oil.

诪转讬讘 专讘 讬讜住祝 讗祝 注诇 驻诇讬讬讟讜谉 讙讝专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘谉 讘讘讗 讜诇讗 讛讜讚讜 诇讜 讜讗讬 讗诪专转 诪砖讜诐 转注谞讜讙 讗诪讗讬 诇讗 讛讜讚讜 诇讜

Rav Yosef raised an objection from the Tosefta: Rabbi Yehuda ben Bava issued a decree on balsam oil as well, prohibiting its use due to mourning over the destruction of the Temple, and the Sages did not agree with him. And if you say that balsam oil is the chief ointment cited in the verse, and the decree was issued due to the pleasure it provides, why didn鈥檛 the Sages agree with his decree? Doesn鈥檛 the verse criticize those who do not feel the pain of the people?

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讜诇讟注诪讬讱 讛讗 讚讻转讬讘 讛砖转讬诐 讘诪讝专拽讬 讬讬谉 专讘讬 讗诪讬 讜专讘讬 讗住讬 讞讚 讗诪专 拽谞讬砖拽谞讬谉 讜讞讚 讗诪专 砖诪讝专拽讬谉 讻讜住讜转讬讛谉 讝讛 诇讝讛 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讚讗住讬专 讜讛讗 专讘讛 讘专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗讬拽诇注 诇讘讬 专讬砖 讙诇讜转讗 讜砖转讛 讘拽谞讬砖拽谞讬谉 讜诇讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讜诇讗 诪讬讚讬

Abaye said to him: And according to your reasoning, that which is written in the same verse: 鈥淭hat drink wine in mizrekei鈥; Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Asi disagree over the meaning of the term mizrekei. One said: They are multi-spouted vessels [kenishkanin], wine vessels with spouts from which several people can drink at one time, and one said that they throw [mezarkin] their cups to one another in joy and jest. Is that also prohibited? Didn鈥檛 Rabba bar Rav Huna visit the house of the Exilarch and see the Exilarch drink from a multi-spouted vessel, and Rabba bar Rav Huna did not say anything to him?

讗诇讗 讻诇 诪讬讚讬 讚讗讬转 讘讬讛 转注谞讜讙 讜讗讬转 讘讬讛 砖诪讞讛 讙讝专讜 专讘谞谉 讗讘诇 诪讬讚讬 讚讗讬转 讘讬讛 转注谞讜讙 讜诇讬转 讘讬讛 砖诪讞讛 诇讗 讙讝专讜 专讘谞谉:

Rather, the principle is as follows: With regard to any matter in which there is an element of pleasure and in which there is an element of joy, the Sages issued a decree prohibiting it due to mourning over the destruction of the Temple. However, with regard to a matter in which there is an element of pleasure and in which there is no element of joy, the Sages did not issue a decree. Since there is no element of joy in balsam oil, even though it is precious and pleasurable, they did not issue a decree prohibiting it.

讛砖讻讘讬诐 注诇 诪讟讜转 砖谉 讜住专讞讬诐 注诇 注专砖讜转诐 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 诪诇诪讚 砖讛讬讜 诪砖转讬谞讬谉 诪讬诐 讘驻谞讬 诪讟讜转讬讛谉 注专讜诪讬诐

The Gemara interprets additional verses related to the critique of the leadership of Samaria. It is stated: 鈥淭hat lie upon beds of ivory and stretch [seru岣m] upon their couches and eat the lambs out of the flock and the calves out of the midst of the stall鈥 (Amos 6:4). Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi 岣nina, said: This term, seru岣m, interpreted homiletically, teaches that their sin was that they would urinate before their beds while naked.

诪讙讚祝 讘讛 专讘讬 讗讘讛讜 讗讬 讛讻讬 讛讬讬谞讜 讚讻转讬讘 诇讻谉 注转讛 讬讙诇讜 讘专讗砖 讙诇讬诐 诪砖讜诐 讚诪砖转讬谞讬谉 诪讬诐 讘驻谞讬 诪讟讜转讬讛诐 注专讜诪讬诐 讬讙诇讜 讘专讗砖 讙讜诇讬诐

Rabbi Abbahu ridiculed that interpretation: If so, that this is the meaning of the term seru岣m, is this the meaning of that which is written: 鈥淭herefore now they shall go into exile at the head of the exiles and the revelry of those seru岣m shall pass away鈥 (Amos 6:7), because they urinate before their beds while naked they will be exiled at the head of exiles? Although doing so is revolting, a punishment so severe is certainly excessive.

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讛讜 讗诇讜 讘谞讬 讗讚诐 砖讛讬讜 讗讜讻诇讬诐 讜砖讜转讬诐 讝讛 注诐 讝讛 讜讚讜讘拽讬谉 诪讟讜转讬讛谉 讝讜 讘讝讜 讜诪讞诇讬驻讬谉 谞砖讜转讬讛谉 讝讛 注诐 讝讛 讜诪住专讬讞讬谉 注专住讜转诐 讘砖讻讘转 讝专注 砖讗讬谞讜 砖诇讛谉

Rather, Rabbi Abbahu said: This verse is referring to a grave sin. These are people who would eat and drink with each other, and join their beds to each other, and swap wives with each other, and defile their beds with semen that was not theirs. That is the meaning of seru岣m upon their couches. For those severe transgressions they deserved to be exiled at the head of exiles.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讛讜 讜讗诪专讬 诇讛 讘诪转谞讬转讗 转谞讗 砖诇砖讛 讚讘专讬诐 诪讘讬讗讬谉 讗转 讛讗讚诐 诇讬讚讬 注谞讬讜转 讜讗诇讜 讛谉 讛诪砖转讬谉 诪讬诐 讘驻谞讬 诪讟转讜 注专讜诐 讜诪讝诇讝诇 讘谞讟讬诇转 讬讚讬诐 讜砖讗砖转讜 诪拽诇诇转讜 讘驻谞讬讜

On a related note, Rabbi Abbahu said, and some say it was taught in a baraita: Three matters bring a person to a state of poverty as a divine punishment from Heaven: One who urinates before his bed while naked, and one who demeans the ritual washing of the hands, and one whose wife curses him in his presence.

讛诪砖转讬谉 诪讬诐 讘驻谞讬 诪讟转讜 注专讜诐 讗诪专 专讘讗 诇讗 讗诪专谉 讗诇讗 讚诪讛讚专 讗驻讬讛 诇驻讜专讬讬讛 讗讘诇 诇讘专讗讬 诇讬转 诇谉 讘讛

The Gemara explains: With regard to one who urinates before his bed while naked, Rava said: We only said this prohibition in a case where he turns his face toward his bed and urinates toward it; however, if he turns his face and urinates toward the outer portion of the room, we have no problem with it.

讜诪讛讚专 讗驻讬讛 诇驻讜专讬讬讛 谞诪讬 诇讗 讗诪专谉 讗诇讗 诇讗专注讗 讗讘诇 讘诪谞讗 诇讬转 诇谉 讘讛

And where one turns his face toward his bed, too, we only said this prohibition in a case where he urinates on the ground; however, if he urinates into a vessel, we have no problem with it since that is not considered disgusting.

讜诪讝诇讝诇 讘谞讟讬诇转 讬讚讬诐 讗诪专 专讘讗 诇讗 讗诪专谉 讗诇讗 讚诇讗 诪砖讗 讬讚讬讛 讻诇诇 讗讘诇 诪砖讗 讜诇讗 诪砖讗 诇讬转 诇谉 讘讛

With regard to one who demeans the ritual washing of the hands, Rava said: We only said this statement in a case where he does not wash his hands at all; however, if he washes his hands and does not wash them with a significant amount of water, we have no problem with it.

讜诇讗讜 诪诇转讗 讛讬讗 讚讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 讗谞讗 诪砖讗讬 诪诇讗 讞驻谞讬 诪讬讗 讜讬讛讘讜 诇讬 诪诇讗 讞驻谞讬 讟讬讘讜转讗

The Gemara notes: And that is not so, as Rav 岣sda said: I wash my hands with handfuls of water and they gave me in reward handfuls of prosperity. Apparently, in order to garner the benefits of ritual washing of his hands, one should use a significant amount of water.

讜砖讗砖转讜 诪拽诇诇转讜 讘驻谞讬讜 讗诪专 专讘讗 注诇 注住拽讬 转讻砖讬讟讬讛 讜讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讛讜讗 讚讗讬转 诇讬讛 讜诇讗 注讘讬讚:

With regard to one whose wife curses him in his presence, Rava said: This is referring to a case where she curses him over matters relating to her ornaments, i.e., she complains that he does not provide her with jewelry. The Gemara comments: And that applies only when he has the resources to buy her jewelry but does not do so; however, if he does not have sufficient resources he need not be concerned.

讚专砖 专讘讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 注讬诇讗讬 诪讗讬 讚讻转讬讘 讜讬讗诪专 讛壮 讬注谉 讻讬 讙讘讛讜 讘谞讜转 爪讬讜谉 砖讛讬讜 诪讛诇讻讜转 讘拽讜诪讛 讝拽讜驻讛 讜转诇讻谞讛 谞讟讜讬讜转 讙专讜谉 砖讛讬讜 诪讛诇讻讜转 注拽讘 讘爪讚 讙讜讚诇 讜诪砖拽专讜转 注讬谞讬诐 讚讛讜讛 诪诇讗谉 讻讜讞诇讗 诇注讬谞讬讬讛讜 讜诪专诪讝谉 讛诇讜讱 讜讟驻讜祝 砖讛讬讜 诪讛诇讻讜转 讗专讜讻讛 讘爪讚 拽爪专讛 讜讘专讙诇讬讛谉 转注讻住谞讛 讗诪专 专讘 讬爪讞拽 讚讘讬 专讘讬 讗诪讬 诪诇诪讚 砖诪讟讬诇讜转 诪讜专 讜讗驻专住诪讜谉 讘诪谞注诇讬讛谉 讜诪讛诇讻讜转 讘砖讜拽讬 讬专讜砖诇讬诐 讜讻讬讜谉 砖诪讙讬注讜转 讗爪诇 讘讞讜专讬 讬砖专讗诇 讘讜注讟讜转 讘拽专拽注 讜诪转讬讝讜转 注诇讬讛诐 讜诪讻谞讬住讜转 讘讛谉 讬爪专 讛专注 讻讗专住 讘讻注讜住

Since the Gemara spoke of sins in the First Temple era, it continues to explain other verses with similar content. Rava, son of Rav Ilai, interpreted the following verse homiletically. What is the meaning of that which is written: 鈥淭he Lord says because the daughters of Zion are haughty and walk with outstretched necks and wanton eyes, walking and mincing as they go and making a tinkling with their feet鈥 (Isaiah 3:16)?
鈥淏ecause the daughters of Zion are haughty,鈥 indicates that they would walk with upright stature and carry themselves in an immodest way.
鈥淎nd walk with outstretched necks,鈥 indicates that they would walk in small steps, heel to toe, so onlookers would notice them.
鈥淲anton eyes,鈥 indicates that they would fill their eyes with blue eye shadow and beckon.
鈥淲alking and mincing [tafof] as they go,鈥 indicates that the wealthy women would walk a tall woman alongside a short one so that the tall woman would stand out. This is derived from the interchangeability of the letters tet and tzadi; tzafo, meaning, in this case, to be seen.
鈥淢aking a tinkling [te鈥檃kasna] with their feet,鈥 Rabbi Yitz岣k from the school of Rabbi Ami said: This teaches that they would place myrrh and balsam in their shoes and would walk in the marketplaces of Jerusalem. And once they approached a place where the young men of Israel were congregated, they would stamp their feet on the ground and splash the perfume toward them and instill the evil inclination into them like venom of a viper [ke鈥檈res bakhos].

诪讗讬 驻讜专注谞讜转讬讛诐 讻讚讚专讬砖 专讘讛 讘专 注讜诇讗 讜讛讬讛 转讞转 讘砖诐 诪拽 讬讛讬讛 诪拽讜诐 砖讛讬讜 诪转讘砖诪讜转 讘讜 谞注砖讛 谞诪拽讬诐 谞诪拽讬诐 讜转讞转 讞讙讜专讛 谞拽驻讛 诪拽讜诐 砖讛讬讜 讞讙讜专讜转 讘爪诇爪讜诇 谞注砖讛 谞拽驻讬诐 谞拽驻讬诐 讜转讞转 诪注砖讛 诪拽砖讛 拽专讞讛 诪拽讜诐 砖讛讬讜 诪转拽砖讟讜转 讘讜 谞注砖讛 拽专讞讬诐 拽专讞讬诐 讜转讞转 驻转讬讙讬诇 诪讞讙专转 砖拽 驻转讞讬诐 讛诪讘讬讗讬谉 诇讬讚讬 讙讬诇讛 讬讛讬讜 诇诪讞讙专转 砖拽 讻讬 转讞转 讬驻讬 讗诪专 专讘讗 讛讬讬谞讜 讚讗诪专讬 讗讬谞砖讬 讞诇讜驻讬 砖讜驻专讗 讻讬讘讗

What was their punishment for these sins? As Rabba bar Ulla taught: 鈥淎nd it shall come to pass that instead of a sweet smell, there shall be a stench; and instead of a belt, a rope; and instead of well-set hair, baldness; and instead of a fine dress, a girding of sackcloth; instead of beauty, a brand鈥 (Isaiah 3:24).
He explains: 鈥淎nd it shall come to pass that instead of a sweet smell there shall be a stench,鈥 indicates that the place that they would perfume became decaying sores.
鈥淎nd instead of a sash, a rope [nikpe],鈥 indicates that the place where they were girded with a sash became covered with many bruises [nekafim].
鈥淎nd instead of well-set hair, baldness,鈥 indicates that the place where they would style their hair became bald spots.
鈥淎nd instead of a fine dress [petigil], a girding of sackcloth,鈥 indicates that the orifices [peta岣m] that lead to pleasure [gil] will become a place for a girding of sackcloth.
鈥淚nstead of beauty, a brand [ki],鈥 Rava said: That is the popular expression that people say: Instead of beauty, a sore [kiva].

(讜住驻讞) 讛壮 拽讚拽讚 讘谞讜转 爪讬讜谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 诪诇诪讚 砖驻专讞讛 讘讛谉 爪专注转 讻转讬讘 讛讻讗 讜砖驻讞 讜讻转讬讘 讛转诐 诇砖讗转 讜诇住驻讞转

With regard to a different verse: 鈥淭he Lord will smite with a scab the crown of the head of the daughters of Zion and the Lord will lay bare their secret parts鈥 (Isaiah 3:17). And the Lord will smite with a scab the crown of the heads of the daughters of Zion; Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi 岣nina, said: This teaches that there was an outbreak of leprosy among them. It is written here, scab [sippa岣], and it is written there, among the types of leprosy: 鈥淔or a sore, and for a scab [sappa岣t], and for a bright spot鈥 (Leviticus 14:56).

讜讛壮 驻转讛谉 讬注专讛 专讘 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讞讚 讗诪专 砖谞砖驻讻讜 讻拽讬转讜谉 讜讞讚 讗诪专 砖谞注砖讜 驻转讞讬讛谉 讻讬注专

With regard to the verse: And the Lord will lay bare their secret parts [pot鈥檋en ye鈥檃reh], Rav and Shmuel disagree. One says: It means that they, i.e., their innards, were poured out [ye鈥檃reh] like a jug. And one says: That their orifices [pit岣ihen] were covered with hair as thick as a forest [ya鈥檃r].

讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 讗谞砖讬 讬专讜砖诇讬诐 讗谞砖讬 砖讞抓 讛讬讜 讗讚诐 讗讜诪专 诇讞讘专讜 讘诪讛 住注讚转 讛讬讜诐 讘驻转 注诪讬诇讛 讗讜 讘驻转 砖讗讬谞讛 注诪讬诇讛 讘讬讬谉 讙讜专讚诇讬 讗讜

On the topic of the sins of Jerusalem and the abundance that existed before its destruction, Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: The people of Jerusalem were people of arrogance. They would couch their crude behavior in euphemisms. A person would say to another: On what did you dine today? Well-kneaded bread or bread that is not well-kneaded? On white wine or

Scroll To Top