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

Today's Daf Yomi

May 9, 2020 | 讟状讜 讘讗讬讬专 转砖状驻

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

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

  • This month鈥檚 learning is sponsored by Shlomo and Amalia Klapper in honor of the birth of Chiyenna Yochana, named after her great-great-grandmother, Chiyenna Kossovsky.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Elaine Hochberg in honor of her husband, Arie Hochberg, who continues to journey through Daf Yomi with her. 鈥淎nd with thanks to Rabbanit Farber and Hadran who have made our learning possible.鈥

Shabbat 64

The gemara discusses different items that are susceptible to impurity even if they don’t have a minimum size. With what items are women allowed to go out on Shabbat? Certain items that are forbidden to go out with in public are permitted in a courtyard and others are forbidden – although there is a debate regarding this. Why do women go out with jewelry even when it is clear that the rabbis forbade it?

讻诇讬 讻诇讬 诪讛转诐:

from the word vessel written there, with regard to the halakhot of ritual impurity imparted by a corpse, and the word vessel written with regard to the halakhot of other impurities.

诪讜住祝 砖拽 注诇 讛讘讙讚 砖讟诪讗 诪砖讜诐 讗专讬讙: 讗讟讜 讘讙讚 诇讗讜 讗专讬讙 讛讜讗 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 诪讜住祝 砖拽 注诇 讛讘讙讚 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讗讬谞讜 讗专讬讙 讟诪讗 诇诪讗讬 讞讝讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 砖讻谉 注谞讬 拽讜诇注 砖诇砖 谞讬诪讬谉 讜转讜诇讛 讘爪讜讗专 讘转讜

It was taught in the baraita that a sack is added to the category of 鈥garment鈥; it too is ritually impure due to woven fabric. The Gemara asks: Is that to say that a garment is not a woven fabric? Rather, the statement should be emended and say as follows: A sack made from goat hair is added to the category of garment; even though it is not woven it can nevertheless become ritually impure. The Gemara asks: For what is a garment made of unwoven goat hair suitable? Rabbi Yo岣nan said: Since a poor person occasionally braids three goat hairs and hangs it on his daughter鈥檚 neck as an ornament.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 砖拽 讗讬谉 诇讬 讗诇讗 砖拽 诪谞讬讬谉 诇专讘讜转 讗转 讛拽讬诇拽诇讬 讜讗转 讛讞讘拽 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讗讜 砖拽 讬讻讜诇 砖讗谞讬 诪专讘讛 讗转 讛讞讘诇讬诐 讜讗转 讛诪砖讬讞讜转 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 砖拽 诪讛 砖拽 讟讜讜讬 讜讗专讬讙 讗祝 讻诇 讟讜讜讬 讜讗专讬讙

The Sages taught a detailed halakhic exposition of that verse in a different baraita. From the fact that the verse mentioned sack, I have only derived that a whole sack can become ritually impure. From where is it derived to include even reins [kilkeli] and a saddle band fastened under the horse鈥檚 belly in the category of those objects that can become ritually impure? The verse states: 鈥淥r sack鈥; 鈥渙r鈥 teaches that the verse is referring to items similar to a sack as well. I might have thought, on that basis, that I should include even the ropes and measuring cords. The verse states: 鈥淪ack,鈥 just as a sack is spun and woven, so too, everything that is spun and woven can become ritually impure. Ropes and measuring cords are not made from spun threads, and they are certainly not woven.

讛专讬 讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 讘诪转 讜讻诇 讻诇讬 注讜专 讜讻诇 诪注砖讛 注讝讬诐 讜讙讜壮 转转讞讟讗讜 诇专讘讜转 讛拽讬诇拽诇讬 讜讗转 讛讞讘拽

The baraita continues: Now, it says with regard to the halakhot of ritual impurity imparted by a corpse: 鈥淎nd every garment and all that is made of skins and all work of goats鈥 hair and all things made of wood you shall purify鈥 (Numbers 31:20). This verse comes to include reins and the band under the horse鈥檚 belly within the category of: All work of goats鈥 hair. They too can become ritually impure.

讬讻讜诇 砖讗谞讬 诪专讘讛 讗转 讛讞讘诇讬诐 讜讗转 讛诪砖讬讞讜转 讜讚讬谉 讛讜讗 讟讬诪讗 讘砖专抓 讜讟讬诪讗 讘诪转 诪讛 讻砖讟讬诪讗 讘砖专抓 诇讗 讟讬诪讗 讗诇讗 讟讜讜讬 讜讗专讬讙 讗祝 讻砖讟讬诪讗 讘诪转 诇讗 讟讬诪讗 讗诇讗 讟讜讜讬 讜讗专讬讙

I might have thought that I would include even the ropes and thin cords in this category. The Gemara begins with a logical analysis. And it may be inferred logically to the contrary, that a rope cannot become impure. The verse deemed impure an object that came in contact with a creeping animal, and it deemed impure an object that came in contact with a corpse. Just as when it rendered an object impure from contact with a creeping animal it only rendered impure objects spun and woven, as stated above; so too, when it rendered impure an object from contact with a corpse, it only rendered impure objects spun and woven.

讛谉 讗诐 讛讬拽诇 讘讟诪讗 砖专抓 砖讛讬讗 拽诇讛 谞拽讬诇 讘讟讜诪讗转 讛诪转 砖讛讬讗 讞诪讜专讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讘讙讚 讜注讜专 讘讙讚 讜注讜专 诇讙讝讬专讛 砖讜讛

There is room to distinguish: Are these indeed comparable? If the Torah was lenient with regard to the ritual impurity of an object that came in contact with a creeping animal, which is a less severe form of impurity, saying that ropes do not become impure from contact with that form of ritual impurity, will we be lenient with regard to ritual impurity imparted by a corpse, which is more severe? Perhaps, since impurity imparted by a corpse is more severe, even objects not woven and spun, e.g., ropes, become ritually impure from contact with it. Therefore, the verse states garment and leather, garment and leather to establish a verbal analogy.

谞讗诪专 讘讙讚 讜注讜专 讘砖专抓 讜谞讗诪专 讘讙讚 讜注讜专 讘诪转 诪讛 讘讙讚 讜注讜专 讛讗诪讜专 讘砖专抓 诇讗 讟讬诪讗 讗诇讗 讟讜讜讬 讜讗专讬讙 讗祝 讘讙讚 讜注讜专 讛讗诪讜专 讘诪转 诇讗 讟讬诪讗 讗诇讗 讟讜讜讬 讜讗专讬讙

The term garment and leather is stated with regard to ritual impurity imparted by a creeping animal: 鈥淎nd whatever any of them falls upon when they are dead will be impure whether it be any vessel of wood, or a garment, or leather, or sack, whatever vessel it be with which any work is done it must be put into water and it will be impure until evening, then it will be clean鈥 (Leviticus 11:32). And garment and leather is stated with regard to ritual impurity imparted by a corpse. Just as garment and leather stated with regard to a creeping animal only rendered impure objects that are spun and woven, so too, garment and leather stated with regard to a corpse only rendered impure objects that are spun and woven.

讜诪讛 讘讙讚 讜注讜专 讛讗诪讜专 讘诪转 讟诪讗 讻诇 诪注砖讛 注讝讬诐 讗祝 讘讙讚 讜注讜专 讛讗诪讜专 讘砖专抓 讟诪讗 讻诇 诪注砖讛 注讝讬诐

Utilizing the same verbal analogy, one could say: And just as garment and leather stated with regard to a corpse rendered impure any object that is the work of goats鈥 hair, so too, garment and leather stated with regard to a creeping animal rendered impure any object that is the work of goats鈥 hair.

讗讬谉 诇讬 讗诇讗 讚讘专 讛讘讗 诪谉 讛注讝讬诐 诪谞讬讬谉 诇专讘讜转 讚讘专 讛讘讗 诪讝谞讘 讛住讜住 讜诪讝谞讘 讛驻专讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讗讜 砖拽

I have only derived from this verbal analogy that an object that comes from goats can become ritually impure; from where do I derive to include an item that comes from a horse鈥檚 tail or from a cow鈥檚 tail? The verse states: Or a sack, and anything like a sack, i.e., these other items as well.

讜讛讗 讗驻讬拽转讬讛 诇拽讬诇拽诇讬 讜讞讘拽

The Gemara asks: Didn鈥檛 you already derive ritual impurity with regard to reins and a saddle band from this verse? How can ritual impurity for items that come from a horse鈥檚 tail and a cow鈥檚 tail be derived from the same verse?

讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 诪拽诪讬 讚诇讬转讬讛 讙讝讬专讛 砖讜讛 讛砖转讗 讚讗转讬 讙讝讬专讛 砖讜讛 讗讬讬转讜专 诇讬讛

The Gemara answers: That applies only before the verbal analogy was cited; now that the verbal analogy was cited, the verse is rendered extraneous. The fact that any item that falls in the category of: 鈥淎nd all work of goats鈥 hair,鈥 can become ritually impure is derived from the verbal analogy. Reins and a saddle bands are included in the category of work of goats鈥 hair. Therefore, they need not be derived from that phrase. Consequently, a different halakha can be derived from that extraneous phrase: Objects that come from a horse鈥檚 tail or a cow鈥檚 tail can become ritually impure.

讜讗讬谉 诇讬 讗诇讗 讘砖专抓 讘讟讜诪讗转 诪转 诪谞讬讬谉

The baraita continues: And I have derived that an object made from a horse鈥檚 tail can become impure only with regard to a creeping animal; however, with regard to a corpse, from where is this derived?

讜讚讬谉 讛讜讗 讟讬诪讗 讘诪转 讜讟讬诪讗 讘砖专抓 诪讛 讻砖讟讬诪讗 讘砖专抓 注砖讛 讚讘专 讛讘讗 诪讝谞讘 讛住讜住 讜诪讝谞讘 讛驻专讛 讻诪注砖讛 注讝讬诐 讗祝 讻砖讟讬诪讗 讘诪转 注砖讛 讚讘专 讛讘讗 诪讝谞讘 讛住讜住 讜诪讝谞讘 讛驻专讛 讻诪注砖讛 注讝讬诐

The Gemara begins with a logical analysis. And it may be inferred logically that this is so. The Torah rendered impure a sack that came into contact with a corpse and rendered impure a sack that came into contact with a creeping animal. Just as when the Torah rendered items that came into contact with a creeping animal impure it made the legal status of that which comes from a horse鈥檚 tail and a cow鈥檚 tail equal to the legal status of that which is made from goats鈥 hair, i.e., that it contracts ritual impurity, so too when the Torah rendered impure items that came into contact with a corpse, it made the legal status of that which comes from a horse鈥檚 tail and a cow鈥檚 tail equal to the legal status of that which is made from goats鈥 hair.

讛谉 讗诐 讛专讘讛 讘讟讜诪讗转 注专讘 砖讛讬讗 诪专讜讘讛 谞专讘讛 讘讟讜诪讗转 砖讘注讛 砖讛讬讗 诪讜注讟转

The Gemara rejects this: Are these indeed comparable? If the verse added additional objects to the category of ritual impurity that lasts until nightfall, e.g., the impurity imparted by a creeping animal, which is extensive, will we add additional objects to the category of ritual impurity that lasts for seven days, which is limited to the case of impurity from a corpse? The fact that items made of a horse鈥檚 tail or a cow鈥檚 tail are added to the already broad category of ritual impurity that lasts until nightfall is not necessarily an indication that they are to be added to the category of ritual impurity that lasts seven days.

转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讘讙讚 讜注讜专 讘讙讚 讜注讜专 诇讙讝讬专讛 砖讜讛 谞讗诪专 讘讙讚 讜注讜专 讘砖专抓 讜谞讗诪专 讘讙讚 讜注讜专 讘诪转 诪讛 讘讙讚 讜注讜专 讛讗诪讜专 讘砖专抓 注砖讛 讚讘专 讛讘讗 诪讝谞讘 讛住讜住 讜诪讝谞讘 讛驻专讛 讻诪注砖讛 注讝讬诐 讗祝 讘讙讚 讜注讜专 讛讗诪讜专 讘诪转 注砖讛 讚讘专 讛讘讗 诪讝谞讘 讛住讜住 讜诪讝谞讘 讛驻专讛 讻诪注砖讛 注讝讬诐

The verse states: Garment and leather, garment and leather to establish a verbal analogy. Garment and leather is stated with regard to ritual impurity imparted by a creeping animal, and garment and leather is stated with regard to ritual impurity imparted by a corpse. Just as with regard to the garment and leather stated in the halakhot of a creeping animal the Torah rendered the legal status of an item made from a horse鈥檚 tail or a cow鈥檚 tail equal to the legal status of that which is made from goats鈥 hair, so too, with regard to the garment and leather stated in the halakhot of a corpse, the Torah rendered the legal status of an item made from a horse鈥檚 tail or a cow鈥檚 tail equal to the legal status of that which is made from goats鈥 hair.

讜诪讜驻谞讛 讚讗讬 诇讗讜 诪讜驻谞讛 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬驻专讱 诪讛 诇砖专抓 砖讻谉 诪讟诪讗 讘讻注讚砖讛

The Gemara notes: And it must be that the words garment and leather are free. Those terms must be superfluous in their context. The Torah included those terms for the express purpose of establishing the verbal analogy. A verbal analogy that is based on otherwise extraneous terms cannot be logically refuted. Because if these terms are not free, the verbal analogy can be refuted: What is unique to a creeping animal? Its ritual impurity is stringent in that it renders objects ritually impure even by means of contact with a lentil-bulk of a creeping animal. That is not the case with regard to a corpse, which is less severe in that it renders objects ritually impure only by means of contact with an olive-bulk of a corpse. Unless the terms are free, the analogy can be refuted.

诇讗讬 讗驻谞讜讬讬 诪讜驻谞讬 诪讻讚讬 砖专抓 讗讬转拽砖 诇砖讻讘转 讝专注 讚讻转讬讘 讗讬砖 讗砖专 转爪讗 诪诪谞讜 砖讻讘转 讝专注 讜住诪讬讱 诇讬讛 讗讬砖 讗砖专 讬讙注 讘讻诇 砖专抓 讜讻转讬讘 讘讬讛 讘砖讻讘转 讝专注 讜讻诇 讘讙讚 讜讻诇 注讜专 讗砖专 讬讛讬讛 注诇讬讜 砖讻讘转 讝专注 讘讙讚 讜注讜专 讚讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 讘砖专抓 诇诪讛 诇讬 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 诇讗驻谞讜讬讬

Indeed [la鈥檈i], they are free. The Gemara proves that the terms garment and leather are extraneous in their context. Now, since ritual impurity from contact with a creeping animal is juxtaposed to ritual impurity from contact with semen, as it is written: 鈥淎nd whoever touches anything that is impure by the dead or a man from whom semen is emitted鈥 (Leviticus 22:4), and juxtaposed to that is the verse: 鈥淥r whoever touches any creeping animal which makes him impure, or a person who may make him impure with any impurity that he has鈥 (Leviticus 22:5). And it is written in the halakhot of the ritual impurity of semen: 鈥淎nd every garment and every hide on which the semen is must be washed with water and will be impure until evening鈥 (Leviticus 15:17). Since the verses appear next to each other, the halakhot of each can be derived from the other. Consequently, the words garment and leather, which the Torah wrote with regard to a creeping animal, why do I need them? The relevant halakha could be derived from the halakhot of seminal impurity. Learn from it that garment and leather were mentioned to render them free.

讜讗讻转讬 诪讜驻谞讛 诪爪讚 讗讞讚 讛讜讗 讛谞讬讞讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 诪讜驻谞讛 诪爪讚 讗讞讚 诇诪讬讚讬谉 讜讗讬谉 诪砖讬讘讬谉 讗诇讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 诇诪讬讚讬谉 讜诪砖讬讘讬谉 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专

The Gemara comments: And still, it is free only from one side of the verbal analogy. Although the terms garment and leather stated with regard to ritual impurity imparted by a creeping animal are extraneous in their context, and the relevant halakha could have been derived in another manner, those terms stated with regard to ritual impurity imparted by a corpse are not extraneous in their context. This verbal analogy is only free from one side. It works out well according to the opinion of the one who said, with regard to a verbal analogy that is free from only one side, one can derive from it and cannot refute it logically. However, according to the opinion of the one who said that one can derive from a verbal analogy of this kind and one can refute it logically, what can be said?

讚诪转 谞诪讬 讗驻谞讜讬讬 诪讜驻谞讛 诪讻讚讬 诪转 讗转拽砖 诇砖讻讘转 讝专注 讚讻转讬讘 讜讛谞讙注 讘讻诇 讟诪讗 谞驻砖 讗讜 讗讬砖 讗砖专 转爪讗 诪诪谞讜 砖讻讘转 讝专注 讜讻转讬讘 讘砖讻讘转 讝专注 讜讻诇 讘讙讚 讜讻诇 注讜专 讘讙讚 讜注讜专 讚讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 讘诪转 诇诪讛 诇讬 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 诇讗驻谞讜讬讬:

The Gemara answers: Garment and leather stated with regard to impurity imparted by a corpse are also free. Now, since a corpse is juxtaposed with semen, as it is written: 鈥淎nd whoever touches anything that is impure by the dead or a man whose semen is emitted from him鈥 (Leviticus 22:4); and it is stated with regard to semen: 鈥淎nd every garment and every hide鈥 (Leviticus 15:17); the terms garment and leather, which the Torah wrote with regard to ritual impurity imparted by a corpse, why do I need them? Learn from it that they are mentioned in order to render them free. These terms are extraneous in their context, and were written for the purpose of the verbal analogy with the halakhot of creeping animals.

讜谞拽专讘 讗转 拽专讘谉 讛壮 讗讬砖 讗砖专 诪爪讗 讻诇讬 讝讛讘 讗爪注讚讛 讜爪诪讬讚 讟讘注转 注讙讬诇 讜讻讜诪讝 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 注讙讬诇 讝讛 讚驻讜住 砖诇 讚讚讬谉 讻讜诪讝 讝讛 讚驻讜住 砖诇 讘讬转 讛专讞诐

The Gemara interprets verses written with regard to the Midianite war discussed above: 鈥淎nd we have brought an offering before the Lord what every man has gotten of jewels of gold, chains, and bracelets, rings, agil, and kumaz, to make atonement for our souls before the Lord鈥 (Numbers 31:50). Rabbi Elazar said: Agil is a mold in the shape of a woman鈥檚 breasts worn over them as an ornament. Kumaz is a mold in the shape of the womb.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 讗讬 讛讻讬 讛讬讬谞讜 讚诪转专讙诪讬谞谉 诪讞讜讱 讚讘专 讛诪讘讬讗 诇讬讚讬 讙讬讞讜讱 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讛 诪讙讜驻讬讛 讚拽专讗 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讻讜诪讝 讻讗谉 诪拽讜诐 讝讬诪讛:

Rav Yosef said: If so, that is the reason that we translate kumaz into Aramaic as ma岣kh, meaning an item that leads to foolishness. Rabba said to him: This meaning is learned from the verse itself; kumaz is an acronym for: Here [kan] is the place of [mekom] lewdness [zimma].

讜讬拽爪祝 诪砖讛 注诇 驻拽讜讚讬 讛讞讬诇 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讗讘讜讛 讗诪专 诇讛谉 诪砖讛 诇讬砖专讗诇 砖诪讗 讞讝专转诐 诇拽诇拽讜诇讻诐 讛专讗砖讜谉 讗诪专讜 诇讜 诇讗 谞驻拽讚 诪诪谞讜 讗讬砖 讗诪专 诇讛谉 讗诐 讻谉 讻驻专讛 诇诪讛 讗诪专讜 诇讜 讗诐 诪讬讚讬 注讘讬专讛 讬爪讗谞讜 诪讬讚讬 讛专讛讜专 诇讗 讬爪讗谞讜 诪讬讚 讜谞拽专讘 讗转 拽专讘谉 讛壮

Later in that chapter, it is written: 鈥淎nd Moses was angry with the officers of the host, the captains over thousands, and captains over hundreds, who came from the battle鈥 (Numbers 31:14); Rav Na岣an said that Rabba bar Avuh said that Moses said to Israel: Perhaps you have returned to your original sinful behavior, when you sinned with the daughters of Moab and Midian at Shittim? They said to him: 鈥淣ot one man of us is missing鈥 (Numbers 31:49), we remain as wholesome in deed as we were. He said to them: If so, why do you need atonement? The princes brought these ornaments to atone for their souls. They said to him: If we have emerged from the grasps of actual transgression, we have not emerged from the grasps of thoughts of transgression. Immediately, they decided: 鈥淎nd we have brought an offering before the Lord.鈥

转谞讗 讚讘讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 诪驻谞讬 诪讛 讛讜爪专讻讜 讬砖专讗诇 砖讘讗讜转讜 讛讚讜专 讻驻专讛 诪驻谞讬

The Sage of the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught: For what reason did Israel in that generation require atonement? Because

砖讝谞讜 注讬谞讬讛诐 诪谉 讛注专讜讛

they nourished their eyes from nakedness.

讗诪专 专讘 砖砖转 诪驻谞讬 诪讛 诪谞讛 讛讻转讜讘 转讻砖讬讟讬谉 砖讘讞讜抓 注诐 转讻砖讬讟讬谉 砖讘驻谞讬诐 诇讜诪专 诇讱 讻诇 讛诪住转讻诇 讘讗爪讘注 拽讟谞讛 砖诇 讗砖讛 讻讗讬诇讜 诪住转讻诇 讘诪拽讜诐 讛转讜专驻讛:

With regard to the verse that lists the ornaments, Rav Sheshet said: For what reason did the verse list outer ornaments, i.e., a bracelet, with inner ornaments, i.e., a kumaz? To tell you that anyone who gazes upon a woman鈥檚 little finger is considered as if he gazed upon her naked genitals. The atonement was for the sin of looking.

诪转谞讬壮 讬讜爪讗讛 讗砖讛 讘讞讜讟讬 砖注专 讘讬谉 诪砖诇讛 讘讬谉 诪砖诇 讞讘讬专转讛 讘讬谉 诪砖诇 讘讛诪讛

MISHNA: The mishna continues to discuss those items with which it is permitted to go out and those items with which it is prohibited to go out on Shabbat. A woman may go out with strands of hair that she put on her head, whether they are from her own hair that she made into a wig, or whether they are from the hair of another, or whether they are from the hair of an animal.

讜讘讟讜讟驻转 讜讘住专讘讬讟讬谉 讘讝诪谉 砖讛谉 转驻讜专讬谉

And a woman may go out with an ornament called totefet, and with sarvitin when they are sewn and will not fall.

讘讻讘讜诇 讜讘驻讗讛 谞讻专讬转 诇讞爪专 讘诪讜讱 砖讘讗讝谞讛 讜讘诪讜讱 砖讘住谞讚诇讛 讜讘诪讜讱 砖讛转拽讬谞讛 诇谞讚转讛

She may go out on Shabbat with a woolen cap or with a wig to the courtyard, although not to the public domain. And likewise she may go out with a cloth that is in her ear, and with a cloth in her sandal, and with a cloth that she placed due to her menstrual status.

讘驻讬诇驻诇 讜讘讙诇讙诇 诪诇讞 讜讻诇 讚讘专 砖谞讬转谉 诇转讜讱 驻讬讛 讜讘诇讘讚 砖诇讗 转转谉 诇讻转讞诇讛 讘砖讘转 讜讗诐 谞驻诇 诇讗 转讞讝讬专

She may go out on Shabbat with pepper, or with a grain of salt, or anything placed in her mouth for healing or for preventing bad odor, as long as she does not put these objects in her mouth for the first time on Shabbat. And if it fell out she may not replace it.

砖谉 转讜转讘转 砖谉 砖诇 讝讛讘 专讘讬 诪转讬专 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜住专讬诐:

A false tooth as well as (Ramban) a gold tooth, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi permits going out with it, and the Rabbis prohibit doing so.

讙诪壮 讜爪专讬讻讗 讚讗讬 讗砖诪注讬谞谉 讚讬讚讛 诪砖讜诐 讚诇讗 诪讗讬住 讗讘诇 讞讘讬专转讛 讚诪讗讬住 讗讬诪讗 诇讗

GEMARA: We learned in the mishna that a woman may go out with different strands of hair. The Gemara comments: And it is necessary to cite all of the cases. If the mishna taught us only with regard to her own hair, I would have said that she may go out with it because it is not repulsive, as it is her own hair; therefore, there is no concern lest she come to remove the strands and carry them in the public domain. However, the hair of another, which is repulsive and a different color from hers, say no, she may not go out with it, due to concern lest she be embarrassed, remove it, and come to carry it in the public domain.

讜讗讬 讗砖诪注讬谞谉 讚讞讘讬专转讛 讚讘转 诪讬谞讛 讛讜讗 讗讘诇 讚讘讛诪讛 诇讗讜 讘专 诪讬谞讛 讛讜讗 讗讬诪讗 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗

And if the mishna taught us that she is permitted to go out with the hair of another, I would have said that she may go out with it because it is hair of her own kind. Therefore, it is not repulsive in her eyes and she will not come to remove it. However, the hair of an animal, since it is not of her own kind, say no, she may not go out with it due to concern lest she remove it. Therefore, it is necessary to cite all three cases.

转谞讗 讜讘诇讘讚 砖诇讗 转爪讗 讬诇讚讛 讘砖诇 讝拽谞讛 讜讝拽谞讛 讘砖诇 讬诇讚讛

It was taught in the Tosefta: It is permitted as long as a girl does not go out with the hair of an elderly woman, and an elderly woman does not go out with the hair of a girl.

讘砖诇诪讗 讝拽谞讛 讘砖诇 讬诇讚讛 砖讘讞 讛讜讗 诇讛 讗诇讗 讬诇讚讛 讘砖诇 讝拽谞讛 讗诪讗讬 讙谞讗讬 讛讜讗 诇讛 讗讬讬讚讬 讚转谞讗 讝拽谞讛 讘砖诇 讬诇讚讛 转谞讗 谞诪讬 讬诇讚讛 讘砖诇 讝拽谞讛:

The Gemara challenges: Granted, the Gemara cited the case of an elderly woman who goes out with the hair of a girl, as it is a reasonable scenario because it is flattering for her to look young. However, why would a girl go out with the hair of an elderly woman? Since it is demeaning for her to appear elderly, it is an unlikely scenario. The Gemara answers: Since the mishna taught the case of an elderly woman with the hair of a girl, it also taught the improbable case of a girl with the hair of an elderly woman.

讘讻讘讜诇 讜讘驻讗讛 谞讻专讬转 诇讞爪专: 讗诪专 专讘 讻诇 砖讗住专讜 讞讻诪讬诐 诇爪讗转 讘讜 诇专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讗住讜专 诇爪讗转 讘讜 诇讞爪专 讞讜抓 诪讻讘讜诇 讜驻讗讛 谞讻专讬转

It was taught in the mishna that a woman may go out with a woolen cap or with a wig to the courtyard. Rav said: With regard to all ornaments and garments with which the Sages prohibited going out into the public domain on Shabbat, it is also prohibited to go out with them into the courtyard due to the concern lest she forget and go out to the street, with the exception of a woolen cap and a wig.

专讘讬 注谞谞讬 讘专 砖砖讜谉 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讗诪专 讛讻诇 讻讻讘讜诇

Rabbi Anani bar Sason said in the name of Rabbi Yishmael: All ornaments have the same legal status as a woolen cap and may be worn into the courtyard.

转谞谉 讘讻讘讜诇 讜讘驻讗讛 谞讻专讬转 诇讞爪专 讘砖诇诪讗 诇专讘 谞讬讞讗 讗诇讗 诇专讘讬 注谞谞讬 讘专 砖砖讜谉 拽砖讬讗 专讘讬 注谞谞讬 讘专 砖砖讜谉 诪砖诪讬讛 讚诪讗谉 拽讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讘专 讬讜住讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讘专 讬讜住讬 转谞讗 讛讜讗 讜驻诇讬讙

We learned in the mishna that it is permitted to go out with a woolen cap or a wig into the courtyard. Granted, according to the opinion of Rav the matter works out well, as the mishna allows one to go out into a courtyard only with a woolen cap and a wig. However, according to the opinion of Rabbi Anani bar Sason, it is difficult. The Gemara answers: In whose name did Rabbi Anani bar Sason say his halakha? In the name of Rabbi Yishmael bar Yosei, and Rabbi Yishmael bar Yosei is a tanna and, as such, has the authority to dispute the determination in the mishna.

讜专讘 诪讗讬 砖谞讗 讛谞讬 讗诪专 注讜诇讗 讻讚讬 砖诇讗 转转讙谞讛 注诇 讘注诇讛 讻讚转谞讬讗 讜讛讚讜讛 讘谞讚转讛 讝拽谞讬诐 讛专讗砖讜谞讬诐 讗诪专讜 砖诇讗 转讻讞讜诇 讜诇讗 转驻拽讜住 讜诇讗 转转拽砖讟 讘讘讙讚讬 爪讘注讜谞讬谉 注讚 砖讘讗 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讜诇讬诪讚 讗诐 讻谉 讗转讛 诪讙谞讛 注诇 讘注诇讛 讜谞诪爪讗 讘注诇讛 诪讙专砖讛 讗诇讗 诪讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜讛讚讜讛 讘谞讚转讛 讘谞讚转讛 转讛讗 注讚 砖转讘讗 讘诪讬诐

The Gemara asks: And according to Rav, what is different about these, the woolen cap and the wig, that the mishna permitted going out into the courtyard with them? Ulla said: So that she will not become unappealing to her husband. That would be the result if all ornamentation was prohibited. As it was taught in a baraita with regard to the verse: 鈥淎nd of her that is sick in her menstrual status [niddata]鈥 (Leviticus 15:33), the Elders of the early generations said that this verse comes to teach us that the menstruating woman should be distanced from her husband in all senses, like a person ostracized [menudeh] by the Sages. This includes that she may not paint her eyes blue, and she may not rouge [pokeset] her face, and she may not adorn herself with colorful clothing. Until Rabbi Akiva came and taught: If you do so, you are making her unappealing to her husband, and her husband will consequently divorce her. Therefore, extreme strictures should not be instituted. Rather, what is the meaning of that which the verse states: 鈥淎nd of her that is sick in her menstrual status鈥? She shall remain prohibited in her menstrual status even after the flow of blood has stopped until she immerses in the water of a ritual bath.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 讻诇 诪拽讜诐 砖讗住专讜 讞讻诪讬诐 诪驻谞讬 诪专讗讬转 讛注讬谉 讗驻讬诇讜 讘讞讚专讬 讞讚专讬诐 讗住讜专

Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: Wherever the Sages prohibited an action due to the appearance of prohibition, even in the innermost chambers, where no one will see it, it is prohibited. When prohibiting an action, the Sages did not distinguish between different circumstances. They prohibited performing the action in all cases.

转谞谉 讜诇讗 讘讝讜讙 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖驻拽讜拽 讜转谞讬讗 讗讬讚讱 驻讜拽拽 诇讛 讝讜讙 讘爪讜讗专讛 讜诪讟讬讬诇 注诪讛 讘讞爪专

The Gemara raises an objection. We learned in the mishna that an animal belonging to a Jew may not go out on Shabbat with a bell around its neck, even though it is plugged and makes no sound, due to the appearance of prohibition, as it appears as if he were taking the animal to the marketplace. And it was taught in another baraita: He may plug the bell on the animal鈥檚 neck and walk with it in the courtyard. Apparently, although the Sages prohibited this action due to the appearance of prohibition, they permitted it in the courtyard.

转谞讗讬 讛讬讗 讚转谞讬讗

The Gemara answers: It is subject to a dispute between tanna鈥檌m in this matter, as it was taught in a baraita:

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

  • This month鈥檚 learning is sponsored by Shlomo and Amalia Klapper in honor of the birth of Chiyenna Yochana, named after her great-great-grandmother, Chiyenna Kossovsky.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Elaine Hochberg in honor of her husband, Arie Hochberg, who continues to journey through Daf Yomi with her. 鈥淎nd with thanks to Rabbanit Farber and Hadran who have made our learning possible.鈥

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 64: Erotic in the Eye of the Beholder

Different ornamental items - how internal and external pieces of jewelry might be treated differently in halakhah. Context matters, and...

Shabbat 64

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Shabbat 64

讻诇讬 讻诇讬 诪讛转诐:

from the word vessel written there, with regard to the halakhot of ritual impurity imparted by a corpse, and the word vessel written with regard to the halakhot of other impurities.

诪讜住祝 砖拽 注诇 讛讘讙讚 砖讟诪讗 诪砖讜诐 讗专讬讙: 讗讟讜 讘讙讚 诇讗讜 讗专讬讙 讛讜讗 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 诪讜住祝 砖拽 注诇 讛讘讙讚 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讗讬谞讜 讗专讬讙 讟诪讗 诇诪讗讬 讞讝讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 砖讻谉 注谞讬 拽讜诇注 砖诇砖 谞讬诪讬谉 讜转讜诇讛 讘爪讜讗专 讘转讜

It was taught in the baraita that a sack is added to the category of 鈥garment鈥; it too is ritually impure due to woven fabric. The Gemara asks: Is that to say that a garment is not a woven fabric? Rather, the statement should be emended and say as follows: A sack made from goat hair is added to the category of garment; even though it is not woven it can nevertheless become ritually impure. The Gemara asks: For what is a garment made of unwoven goat hair suitable? Rabbi Yo岣nan said: Since a poor person occasionally braids three goat hairs and hangs it on his daughter鈥檚 neck as an ornament.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 砖拽 讗讬谉 诇讬 讗诇讗 砖拽 诪谞讬讬谉 诇专讘讜转 讗转 讛拽讬诇拽诇讬 讜讗转 讛讞讘拽 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讗讜 砖拽 讬讻讜诇 砖讗谞讬 诪专讘讛 讗转 讛讞讘诇讬诐 讜讗转 讛诪砖讬讞讜转 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 砖拽 诪讛 砖拽 讟讜讜讬 讜讗专讬讙 讗祝 讻诇 讟讜讜讬 讜讗专讬讙

The Sages taught a detailed halakhic exposition of that verse in a different baraita. From the fact that the verse mentioned sack, I have only derived that a whole sack can become ritually impure. From where is it derived to include even reins [kilkeli] and a saddle band fastened under the horse鈥檚 belly in the category of those objects that can become ritually impure? The verse states: 鈥淥r sack鈥; 鈥渙r鈥 teaches that the verse is referring to items similar to a sack as well. I might have thought, on that basis, that I should include even the ropes and measuring cords. The verse states: 鈥淪ack,鈥 just as a sack is spun and woven, so too, everything that is spun and woven can become ritually impure. Ropes and measuring cords are not made from spun threads, and they are certainly not woven.

讛专讬 讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 讘诪转 讜讻诇 讻诇讬 注讜专 讜讻诇 诪注砖讛 注讝讬诐 讜讙讜壮 转转讞讟讗讜 诇专讘讜转 讛拽讬诇拽诇讬 讜讗转 讛讞讘拽

The baraita continues: Now, it says with regard to the halakhot of ritual impurity imparted by a corpse: 鈥淎nd every garment and all that is made of skins and all work of goats鈥 hair and all things made of wood you shall purify鈥 (Numbers 31:20). This verse comes to include reins and the band under the horse鈥檚 belly within the category of: All work of goats鈥 hair. They too can become ritually impure.

讬讻讜诇 砖讗谞讬 诪专讘讛 讗转 讛讞讘诇讬诐 讜讗转 讛诪砖讬讞讜转 讜讚讬谉 讛讜讗 讟讬诪讗 讘砖专抓 讜讟讬诪讗 讘诪转 诪讛 讻砖讟讬诪讗 讘砖专抓 诇讗 讟讬诪讗 讗诇讗 讟讜讜讬 讜讗专讬讙 讗祝 讻砖讟讬诪讗 讘诪转 诇讗 讟讬诪讗 讗诇讗 讟讜讜讬 讜讗专讬讙

I might have thought that I would include even the ropes and thin cords in this category. The Gemara begins with a logical analysis. And it may be inferred logically to the contrary, that a rope cannot become impure. The verse deemed impure an object that came in contact with a creeping animal, and it deemed impure an object that came in contact with a corpse. Just as when it rendered an object impure from contact with a creeping animal it only rendered impure objects spun and woven, as stated above; so too, when it rendered impure an object from contact with a corpse, it only rendered impure objects spun and woven.

讛谉 讗诐 讛讬拽诇 讘讟诪讗 砖专抓 砖讛讬讗 拽诇讛 谞拽讬诇 讘讟讜诪讗转 讛诪转 砖讛讬讗 讞诪讜专讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讘讙讚 讜注讜专 讘讙讚 讜注讜专 诇讙讝讬专讛 砖讜讛

There is room to distinguish: Are these indeed comparable? If the Torah was lenient with regard to the ritual impurity of an object that came in contact with a creeping animal, which is a less severe form of impurity, saying that ropes do not become impure from contact with that form of ritual impurity, will we be lenient with regard to ritual impurity imparted by a corpse, which is more severe? Perhaps, since impurity imparted by a corpse is more severe, even objects not woven and spun, e.g., ropes, become ritually impure from contact with it. Therefore, the verse states garment and leather, garment and leather to establish a verbal analogy.

谞讗诪专 讘讙讚 讜注讜专 讘砖专抓 讜谞讗诪专 讘讙讚 讜注讜专 讘诪转 诪讛 讘讙讚 讜注讜专 讛讗诪讜专 讘砖专抓 诇讗 讟讬诪讗 讗诇讗 讟讜讜讬 讜讗专讬讙 讗祝 讘讙讚 讜注讜专 讛讗诪讜专 讘诪转 诇讗 讟讬诪讗 讗诇讗 讟讜讜讬 讜讗专讬讙

The term garment and leather is stated with regard to ritual impurity imparted by a creeping animal: 鈥淎nd whatever any of them falls upon when they are dead will be impure whether it be any vessel of wood, or a garment, or leather, or sack, whatever vessel it be with which any work is done it must be put into water and it will be impure until evening, then it will be clean鈥 (Leviticus 11:32). And garment and leather is stated with regard to ritual impurity imparted by a corpse. Just as garment and leather stated with regard to a creeping animal only rendered impure objects that are spun and woven, so too, garment and leather stated with regard to a corpse only rendered impure objects that are spun and woven.

讜诪讛 讘讙讚 讜注讜专 讛讗诪讜专 讘诪转 讟诪讗 讻诇 诪注砖讛 注讝讬诐 讗祝 讘讙讚 讜注讜专 讛讗诪讜专 讘砖专抓 讟诪讗 讻诇 诪注砖讛 注讝讬诐

Utilizing the same verbal analogy, one could say: And just as garment and leather stated with regard to a corpse rendered impure any object that is the work of goats鈥 hair, so too, garment and leather stated with regard to a creeping animal rendered impure any object that is the work of goats鈥 hair.

讗讬谉 诇讬 讗诇讗 讚讘专 讛讘讗 诪谉 讛注讝讬诐 诪谞讬讬谉 诇专讘讜转 讚讘专 讛讘讗 诪讝谞讘 讛住讜住 讜诪讝谞讘 讛驻专讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讗讜 砖拽

I have only derived from this verbal analogy that an object that comes from goats can become ritually impure; from where do I derive to include an item that comes from a horse鈥檚 tail or from a cow鈥檚 tail? The verse states: Or a sack, and anything like a sack, i.e., these other items as well.

讜讛讗 讗驻讬拽转讬讛 诇拽讬诇拽诇讬 讜讞讘拽

The Gemara asks: Didn鈥檛 you already derive ritual impurity with regard to reins and a saddle band from this verse? How can ritual impurity for items that come from a horse鈥檚 tail and a cow鈥檚 tail be derived from the same verse?

讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 诪拽诪讬 讚诇讬转讬讛 讙讝讬专讛 砖讜讛 讛砖转讗 讚讗转讬 讙讝讬专讛 砖讜讛 讗讬讬转讜专 诇讬讛

The Gemara answers: That applies only before the verbal analogy was cited; now that the verbal analogy was cited, the verse is rendered extraneous. The fact that any item that falls in the category of: 鈥淎nd all work of goats鈥 hair,鈥 can become ritually impure is derived from the verbal analogy. Reins and a saddle bands are included in the category of work of goats鈥 hair. Therefore, they need not be derived from that phrase. Consequently, a different halakha can be derived from that extraneous phrase: Objects that come from a horse鈥檚 tail or a cow鈥檚 tail can become ritually impure.

讜讗讬谉 诇讬 讗诇讗 讘砖专抓 讘讟讜诪讗转 诪转 诪谞讬讬谉

The baraita continues: And I have derived that an object made from a horse鈥檚 tail can become impure only with regard to a creeping animal; however, with regard to a corpse, from where is this derived?

讜讚讬谉 讛讜讗 讟讬诪讗 讘诪转 讜讟讬诪讗 讘砖专抓 诪讛 讻砖讟讬诪讗 讘砖专抓 注砖讛 讚讘专 讛讘讗 诪讝谞讘 讛住讜住 讜诪讝谞讘 讛驻专讛 讻诪注砖讛 注讝讬诐 讗祝 讻砖讟讬诪讗 讘诪转 注砖讛 讚讘专 讛讘讗 诪讝谞讘 讛住讜住 讜诪讝谞讘 讛驻专讛 讻诪注砖讛 注讝讬诐

The Gemara begins with a logical analysis. And it may be inferred logically that this is so. The Torah rendered impure a sack that came into contact with a corpse and rendered impure a sack that came into contact with a creeping animal. Just as when the Torah rendered items that came into contact with a creeping animal impure it made the legal status of that which comes from a horse鈥檚 tail and a cow鈥檚 tail equal to the legal status of that which is made from goats鈥 hair, i.e., that it contracts ritual impurity, so too when the Torah rendered impure items that came into contact with a corpse, it made the legal status of that which comes from a horse鈥檚 tail and a cow鈥檚 tail equal to the legal status of that which is made from goats鈥 hair.

讛谉 讗诐 讛专讘讛 讘讟讜诪讗转 注专讘 砖讛讬讗 诪专讜讘讛 谞专讘讛 讘讟讜诪讗转 砖讘注讛 砖讛讬讗 诪讜注讟转

The Gemara rejects this: Are these indeed comparable? If the verse added additional objects to the category of ritual impurity that lasts until nightfall, e.g., the impurity imparted by a creeping animal, which is extensive, will we add additional objects to the category of ritual impurity that lasts for seven days, which is limited to the case of impurity from a corpse? The fact that items made of a horse鈥檚 tail or a cow鈥檚 tail are added to the already broad category of ritual impurity that lasts until nightfall is not necessarily an indication that they are to be added to the category of ritual impurity that lasts seven days.

转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讘讙讚 讜注讜专 讘讙讚 讜注讜专 诇讙讝讬专讛 砖讜讛 谞讗诪专 讘讙讚 讜注讜专 讘砖专抓 讜谞讗诪专 讘讙讚 讜注讜专 讘诪转 诪讛 讘讙讚 讜注讜专 讛讗诪讜专 讘砖专抓 注砖讛 讚讘专 讛讘讗 诪讝谞讘 讛住讜住 讜诪讝谞讘 讛驻专讛 讻诪注砖讛 注讝讬诐 讗祝 讘讙讚 讜注讜专 讛讗诪讜专 讘诪转 注砖讛 讚讘专 讛讘讗 诪讝谞讘 讛住讜住 讜诪讝谞讘 讛驻专讛 讻诪注砖讛 注讝讬诐

The verse states: Garment and leather, garment and leather to establish a verbal analogy. Garment and leather is stated with regard to ritual impurity imparted by a creeping animal, and garment and leather is stated with regard to ritual impurity imparted by a corpse. Just as with regard to the garment and leather stated in the halakhot of a creeping animal the Torah rendered the legal status of an item made from a horse鈥檚 tail or a cow鈥檚 tail equal to the legal status of that which is made from goats鈥 hair, so too, with regard to the garment and leather stated in the halakhot of a corpse, the Torah rendered the legal status of an item made from a horse鈥檚 tail or a cow鈥檚 tail equal to the legal status of that which is made from goats鈥 hair.

讜诪讜驻谞讛 讚讗讬 诇讗讜 诪讜驻谞讛 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬驻专讱 诪讛 诇砖专抓 砖讻谉 诪讟诪讗 讘讻注讚砖讛

The Gemara notes: And it must be that the words garment and leather are free. Those terms must be superfluous in their context. The Torah included those terms for the express purpose of establishing the verbal analogy. A verbal analogy that is based on otherwise extraneous terms cannot be logically refuted. Because if these terms are not free, the verbal analogy can be refuted: What is unique to a creeping animal? Its ritual impurity is stringent in that it renders objects ritually impure even by means of contact with a lentil-bulk of a creeping animal. That is not the case with regard to a corpse, which is less severe in that it renders objects ritually impure only by means of contact with an olive-bulk of a corpse. Unless the terms are free, the analogy can be refuted.

诇讗讬 讗驻谞讜讬讬 诪讜驻谞讬 诪讻讚讬 砖专抓 讗讬转拽砖 诇砖讻讘转 讝专注 讚讻转讬讘 讗讬砖 讗砖专 转爪讗 诪诪谞讜 砖讻讘转 讝专注 讜住诪讬讱 诇讬讛 讗讬砖 讗砖专 讬讙注 讘讻诇 砖专抓 讜讻转讬讘 讘讬讛 讘砖讻讘转 讝专注 讜讻诇 讘讙讚 讜讻诇 注讜专 讗砖专 讬讛讬讛 注诇讬讜 砖讻讘转 讝专注 讘讙讚 讜注讜专 讚讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 讘砖专抓 诇诪讛 诇讬 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 诇讗驻谞讜讬讬

Indeed [la鈥檈i], they are free. The Gemara proves that the terms garment and leather are extraneous in their context. Now, since ritual impurity from contact with a creeping animal is juxtaposed to ritual impurity from contact with semen, as it is written: 鈥淎nd whoever touches anything that is impure by the dead or a man from whom semen is emitted鈥 (Leviticus 22:4), and juxtaposed to that is the verse: 鈥淥r whoever touches any creeping animal which makes him impure, or a person who may make him impure with any impurity that he has鈥 (Leviticus 22:5). And it is written in the halakhot of the ritual impurity of semen: 鈥淎nd every garment and every hide on which the semen is must be washed with water and will be impure until evening鈥 (Leviticus 15:17). Since the verses appear next to each other, the halakhot of each can be derived from the other. Consequently, the words garment and leather, which the Torah wrote with regard to a creeping animal, why do I need them? The relevant halakha could be derived from the halakhot of seminal impurity. Learn from it that garment and leather were mentioned to render them free.

讜讗讻转讬 诪讜驻谞讛 诪爪讚 讗讞讚 讛讜讗 讛谞讬讞讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 诪讜驻谞讛 诪爪讚 讗讞讚 诇诪讬讚讬谉 讜讗讬谉 诪砖讬讘讬谉 讗诇讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 诇诪讬讚讬谉 讜诪砖讬讘讬谉 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专

The Gemara comments: And still, it is free only from one side of the verbal analogy. Although the terms garment and leather stated with regard to ritual impurity imparted by a creeping animal are extraneous in their context, and the relevant halakha could have been derived in another manner, those terms stated with regard to ritual impurity imparted by a corpse are not extraneous in their context. This verbal analogy is only free from one side. It works out well according to the opinion of the one who said, with regard to a verbal analogy that is free from only one side, one can derive from it and cannot refute it logically. However, according to the opinion of the one who said that one can derive from a verbal analogy of this kind and one can refute it logically, what can be said?

讚诪转 谞诪讬 讗驻谞讜讬讬 诪讜驻谞讛 诪讻讚讬 诪转 讗转拽砖 诇砖讻讘转 讝专注 讚讻转讬讘 讜讛谞讙注 讘讻诇 讟诪讗 谞驻砖 讗讜 讗讬砖 讗砖专 转爪讗 诪诪谞讜 砖讻讘转 讝专注 讜讻转讬讘 讘砖讻讘转 讝专注 讜讻诇 讘讙讚 讜讻诇 注讜专 讘讙讚 讜注讜专 讚讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 讘诪转 诇诪讛 诇讬 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 诇讗驻谞讜讬讬:

The Gemara answers: Garment and leather stated with regard to impurity imparted by a corpse are also free. Now, since a corpse is juxtaposed with semen, as it is written: 鈥淎nd whoever touches anything that is impure by the dead or a man whose semen is emitted from him鈥 (Leviticus 22:4); and it is stated with regard to semen: 鈥淎nd every garment and every hide鈥 (Leviticus 15:17); the terms garment and leather, which the Torah wrote with regard to ritual impurity imparted by a corpse, why do I need them? Learn from it that they are mentioned in order to render them free. These terms are extraneous in their context, and were written for the purpose of the verbal analogy with the halakhot of creeping animals.

讜谞拽专讘 讗转 拽专讘谉 讛壮 讗讬砖 讗砖专 诪爪讗 讻诇讬 讝讛讘 讗爪注讚讛 讜爪诪讬讚 讟讘注转 注讙讬诇 讜讻讜诪讝 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 注讙讬诇 讝讛 讚驻讜住 砖诇 讚讚讬谉 讻讜诪讝 讝讛 讚驻讜住 砖诇 讘讬转 讛专讞诐

The Gemara interprets verses written with regard to the Midianite war discussed above: 鈥淎nd we have brought an offering before the Lord what every man has gotten of jewels of gold, chains, and bracelets, rings, agil, and kumaz, to make atonement for our souls before the Lord鈥 (Numbers 31:50). Rabbi Elazar said: Agil is a mold in the shape of a woman鈥檚 breasts worn over them as an ornament. Kumaz is a mold in the shape of the womb.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 讗讬 讛讻讬 讛讬讬谞讜 讚诪转专讙诪讬谞谉 诪讞讜讱 讚讘专 讛诪讘讬讗 诇讬讚讬 讙讬讞讜讱 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讛 诪讙讜驻讬讛 讚拽专讗 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讻讜诪讝 讻讗谉 诪拽讜诐 讝讬诪讛:

Rav Yosef said: If so, that is the reason that we translate kumaz into Aramaic as ma岣kh, meaning an item that leads to foolishness. Rabba said to him: This meaning is learned from the verse itself; kumaz is an acronym for: Here [kan] is the place of [mekom] lewdness [zimma].

讜讬拽爪祝 诪砖讛 注诇 驻拽讜讚讬 讛讞讬诇 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讗讘讜讛 讗诪专 诇讛谉 诪砖讛 诇讬砖专讗诇 砖诪讗 讞讝专转诐 诇拽诇拽讜诇讻诐 讛专讗砖讜谉 讗诪专讜 诇讜 诇讗 谞驻拽讚 诪诪谞讜 讗讬砖 讗诪专 诇讛谉 讗诐 讻谉 讻驻专讛 诇诪讛 讗诪专讜 诇讜 讗诐 诪讬讚讬 注讘讬专讛 讬爪讗谞讜 诪讬讚讬 讛专讛讜专 诇讗 讬爪讗谞讜 诪讬讚 讜谞拽专讘 讗转 拽专讘谉 讛壮

Later in that chapter, it is written: 鈥淎nd Moses was angry with the officers of the host, the captains over thousands, and captains over hundreds, who came from the battle鈥 (Numbers 31:14); Rav Na岣an said that Rabba bar Avuh said that Moses said to Israel: Perhaps you have returned to your original sinful behavior, when you sinned with the daughters of Moab and Midian at Shittim? They said to him: 鈥淣ot one man of us is missing鈥 (Numbers 31:49), we remain as wholesome in deed as we were. He said to them: If so, why do you need atonement? The princes brought these ornaments to atone for their souls. They said to him: If we have emerged from the grasps of actual transgression, we have not emerged from the grasps of thoughts of transgression. Immediately, they decided: 鈥淎nd we have brought an offering before the Lord.鈥

转谞讗 讚讘讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 诪驻谞讬 诪讛 讛讜爪专讻讜 讬砖专讗诇 砖讘讗讜转讜 讛讚讜专 讻驻专讛 诪驻谞讬

The Sage of the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught: For what reason did Israel in that generation require atonement? Because

砖讝谞讜 注讬谞讬讛诐 诪谉 讛注专讜讛

they nourished their eyes from nakedness.

讗诪专 专讘 砖砖转 诪驻谞讬 诪讛 诪谞讛 讛讻转讜讘 转讻砖讬讟讬谉 砖讘讞讜抓 注诐 转讻砖讬讟讬谉 砖讘驻谞讬诐 诇讜诪专 诇讱 讻诇 讛诪住转讻诇 讘讗爪讘注 拽讟谞讛 砖诇 讗砖讛 讻讗讬诇讜 诪住转讻诇 讘诪拽讜诐 讛转讜专驻讛:

With regard to the verse that lists the ornaments, Rav Sheshet said: For what reason did the verse list outer ornaments, i.e., a bracelet, with inner ornaments, i.e., a kumaz? To tell you that anyone who gazes upon a woman鈥檚 little finger is considered as if he gazed upon her naked genitals. The atonement was for the sin of looking.

诪转谞讬壮 讬讜爪讗讛 讗砖讛 讘讞讜讟讬 砖注专 讘讬谉 诪砖诇讛 讘讬谉 诪砖诇 讞讘讬专转讛 讘讬谉 诪砖诇 讘讛诪讛

MISHNA: The mishna continues to discuss those items with which it is permitted to go out and those items with which it is prohibited to go out on Shabbat. A woman may go out with strands of hair that she put on her head, whether they are from her own hair that she made into a wig, or whether they are from the hair of another, or whether they are from the hair of an animal.

讜讘讟讜讟驻转 讜讘住专讘讬讟讬谉 讘讝诪谉 砖讛谉 转驻讜专讬谉

And a woman may go out with an ornament called totefet, and with sarvitin when they are sewn and will not fall.

讘讻讘讜诇 讜讘驻讗讛 谞讻专讬转 诇讞爪专 讘诪讜讱 砖讘讗讝谞讛 讜讘诪讜讱 砖讘住谞讚诇讛 讜讘诪讜讱 砖讛转拽讬谞讛 诇谞讚转讛

She may go out on Shabbat with a woolen cap or with a wig to the courtyard, although not to the public domain. And likewise she may go out with a cloth that is in her ear, and with a cloth in her sandal, and with a cloth that she placed due to her menstrual status.

讘驻讬诇驻诇 讜讘讙诇讙诇 诪诇讞 讜讻诇 讚讘专 砖谞讬转谉 诇转讜讱 驻讬讛 讜讘诇讘讚 砖诇讗 转转谉 诇讻转讞诇讛 讘砖讘转 讜讗诐 谞驻诇 诇讗 转讞讝讬专

She may go out on Shabbat with pepper, or with a grain of salt, or anything placed in her mouth for healing or for preventing bad odor, as long as she does not put these objects in her mouth for the first time on Shabbat. And if it fell out she may not replace it.

砖谉 转讜转讘转 砖谉 砖诇 讝讛讘 专讘讬 诪转讬专 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜住专讬诐:

A false tooth as well as (Ramban) a gold tooth, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi permits going out with it, and the Rabbis prohibit doing so.

讙诪壮 讜爪专讬讻讗 讚讗讬 讗砖诪注讬谞谉 讚讬讚讛 诪砖讜诐 讚诇讗 诪讗讬住 讗讘诇 讞讘讬专转讛 讚诪讗讬住 讗讬诪讗 诇讗

GEMARA: We learned in the mishna that a woman may go out with different strands of hair. The Gemara comments: And it is necessary to cite all of the cases. If the mishna taught us only with regard to her own hair, I would have said that she may go out with it because it is not repulsive, as it is her own hair; therefore, there is no concern lest she come to remove the strands and carry them in the public domain. However, the hair of another, which is repulsive and a different color from hers, say no, she may not go out with it, due to concern lest she be embarrassed, remove it, and come to carry it in the public domain.

讜讗讬 讗砖诪注讬谞谉 讚讞讘讬专转讛 讚讘转 诪讬谞讛 讛讜讗 讗讘诇 讚讘讛诪讛 诇讗讜 讘专 诪讬谞讛 讛讜讗 讗讬诪讗 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗

And if the mishna taught us that she is permitted to go out with the hair of another, I would have said that she may go out with it because it is hair of her own kind. Therefore, it is not repulsive in her eyes and she will not come to remove it. However, the hair of an animal, since it is not of her own kind, say no, she may not go out with it due to concern lest she remove it. Therefore, it is necessary to cite all three cases.

转谞讗 讜讘诇讘讚 砖诇讗 转爪讗 讬诇讚讛 讘砖诇 讝拽谞讛 讜讝拽谞讛 讘砖诇 讬诇讚讛

It was taught in the Tosefta: It is permitted as long as a girl does not go out with the hair of an elderly woman, and an elderly woman does not go out with the hair of a girl.

讘砖诇诪讗 讝拽谞讛 讘砖诇 讬诇讚讛 砖讘讞 讛讜讗 诇讛 讗诇讗 讬诇讚讛 讘砖诇 讝拽谞讛 讗诪讗讬 讙谞讗讬 讛讜讗 诇讛 讗讬讬讚讬 讚转谞讗 讝拽谞讛 讘砖诇 讬诇讚讛 转谞讗 谞诪讬 讬诇讚讛 讘砖诇 讝拽谞讛:

The Gemara challenges: Granted, the Gemara cited the case of an elderly woman who goes out with the hair of a girl, as it is a reasonable scenario because it is flattering for her to look young. However, why would a girl go out with the hair of an elderly woman? Since it is demeaning for her to appear elderly, it is an unlikely scenario. The Gemara answers: Since the mishna taught the case of an elderly woman with the hair of a girl, it also taught the improbable case of a girl with the hair of an elderly woman.

讘讻讘讜诇 讜讘驻讗讛 谞讻专讬转 诇讞爪专: 讗诪专 专讘 讻诇 砖讗住专讜 讞讻诪讬诐 诇爪讗转 讘讜 诇专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讗住讜专 诇爪讗转 讘讜 诇讞爪专 讞讜抓 诪讻讘讜诇 讜驻讗讛 谞讻专讬转

It was taught in the mishna that a woman may go out with a woolen cap or with a wig to the courtyard. Rav said: With regard to all ornaments and garments with which the Sages prohibited going out into the public domain on Shabbat, it is also prohibited to go out with them into the courtyard due to the concern lest she forget and go out to the street, with the exception of a woolen cap and a wig.

专讘讬 注谞谞讬 讘专 砖砖讜谉 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讗诪专 讛讻诇 讻讻讘讜诇

Rabbi Anani bar Sason said in the name of Rabbi Yishmael: All ornaments have the same legal status as a woolen cap and may be worn into the courtyard.

转谞谉 讘讻讘讜诇 讜讘驻讗讛 谞讻专讬转 诇讞爪专 讘砖诇诪讗 诇专讘 谞讬讞讗 讗诇讗 诇专讘讬 注谞谞讬 讘专 砖砖讜谉 拽砖讬讗 专讘讬 注谞谞讬 讘专 砖砖讜谉 诪砖诪讬讛 讚诪讗谉 拽讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讘专 讬讜住讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讘专 讬讜住讬 转谞讗 讛讜讗 讜驻诇讬讙

We learned in the mishna that it is permitted to go out with a woolen cap or a wig into the courtyard. Granted, according to the opinion of Rav the matter works out well, as the mishna allows one to go out into a courtyard only with a woolen cap and a wig. However, according to the opinion of Rabbi Anani bar Sason, it is difficult. The Gemara answers: In whose name did Rabbi Anani bar Sason say his halakha? In the name of Rabbi Yishmael bar Yosei, and Rabbi Yishmael bar Yosei is a tanna and, as such, has the authority to dispute the determination in the mishna.

讜专讘 诪讗讬 砖谞讗 讛谞讬 讗诪专 注讜诇讗 讻讚讬 砖诇讗 转转讙谞讛 注诇 讘注诇讛 讻讚转谞讬讗 讜讛讚讜讛 讘谞讚转讛 讝拽谞讬诐 讛专讗砖讜谞讬诐 讗诪专讜 砖诇讗 转讻讞讜诇 讜诇讗 转驻拽讜住 讜诇讗 转转拽砖讟 讘讘讙讚讬 爪讘注讜谞讬谉 注讚 砖讘讗 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讜诇讬诪讚 讗诐 讻谉 讗转讛 诪讙谞讛 注诇 讘注诇讛 讜谞诪爪讗 讘注诇讛 诪讙专砖讛 讗诇讗 诪讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜讛讚讜讛 讘谞讚转讛 讘谞讚转讛 转讛讗 注讚 砖转讘讗 讘诪讬诐

The Gemara asks: And according to Rav, what is different about these, the woolen cap and the wig, that the mishna permitted going out into the courtyard with them? Ulla said: So that she will not become unappealing to her husband. That would be the result if all ornamentation was prohibited. As it was taught in a baraita with regard to the verse: 鈥淎nd of her that is sick in her menstrual status [niddata]鈥 (Leviticus 15:33), the Elders of the early generations said that this verse comes to teach us that the menstruating woman should be distanced from her husband in all senses, like a person ostracized [menudeh] by the Sages. This includes that she may not paint her eyes blue, and she may not rouge [pokeset] her face, and she may not adorn herself with colorful clothing. Until Rabbi Akiva came and taught: If you do so, you are making her unappealing to her husband, and her husband will consequently divorce her. Therefore, extreme strictures should not be instituted. Rather, what is the meaning of that which the verse states: 鈥淎nd of her that is sick in her menstrual status鈥? She shall remain prohibited in her menstrual status even after the flow of blood has stopped until she immerses in the water of a ritual bath.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 讻诇 诪拽讜诐 砖讗住专讜 讞讻诪讬诐 诪驻谞讬 诪专讗讬转 讛注讬谉 讗驻讬诇讜 讘讞讚专讬 讞讚专讬诐 讗住讜专

Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: Wherever the Sages prohibited an action due to the appearance of prohibition, even in the innermost chambers, where no one will see it, it is prohibited. When prohibiting an action, the Sages did not distinguish between different circumstances. They prohibited performing the action in all cases.

转谞谉 讜诇讗 讘讝讜讙 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖驻拽讜拽 讜转谞讬讗 讗讬讚讱 驻讜拽拽 诇讛 讝讜讙 讘爪讜讗专讛 讜诪讟讬讬诇 注诪讛 讘讞爪专

The Gemara raises an objection. We learned in the mishna that an animal belonging to a Jew may not go out on Shabbat with a bell around its neck, even though it is plugged and makes no sound, due to the appearance of prohibition, as it appears as if he were taking the animal to the marketplace. And it was taught in another baraita: He may plug the bell on the animal鈥檚 neck and walk with it in the courtyard. Apparently, although the Sages prohibited this action due to the appearance of prohibition, they permitted it in the courtyard.

转谞讗讬 讛讬讗 讚转谞讬讗

The Gemara answers: It is subject to a dispute between tanna鈥檌m in this matter, as it was taught in a baraita:

Scroll To Top