Why is a bell once the clapper is removed still susceptible to impurities – what can it be used for? Several answers are brought. Rabbi Yochanan says it can be used as a cup for a young child. But doesn’t Rabbi Yochanan hold elsewhere that if a utensil can no longer be used for its original purpose, it is no longer susceptible to impurities? The gemara goes through the jewelry mentioned in the mishna and explains what they are, raises arguments regarding each case (if there are) and cases where women may be allowed to where jewelry according to some opinions. For example, prominent women are unlikely to remove jewelry so jewels that are only worn by prominent women may be allowed according to some.
Shabbat 59
May 04, 2020 | י׳ באייר תש״פ
Share this shiur:
Want to dedicate learning? Get started here:
Shabbat 59
הוֹאִיל וְרָאוּי לְהַקִּישׁוֹ עַל גַּבֵּי חֶרֶס.
It is considered a vessel since a bell without a clapper is suited to strike on earthenware and produce a sound of similar quality to that produced by a clapper. If so, even when the clapper is removed, the bell may still be used for its original purpose.
אִיתְּמַר נָמֵי, אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי חֲנִינָא: הוֹאִיל וְרָאוּי לְהַקִּישׁוֹ עַל גַּבֵּי חֶרֶס. רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: הוֹאִיל וְרָאוּי לְגַמֵּעַ בּוֹ מַיִם לְתִינוֹק.
It was also stated that Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, said: It is considered a vessel, since a bell without a clapper is suited to strike on earthenware. Rabbi Yoḥanan said: It is considered a vessel, since it is suited for use to give water to a child to drink.
וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן לָא בָּעֵי מֵעֵין מְלָאכָה רִאשׁוֹנָה? וְהָתַנְיָא: ״וְכׇל כְּלִי אֲשֶׁר יֵשֵׁב עָלָיו וְגוֹ׳״ — יָכוֹל כָּפָה סְאָה וְיָשַׁב עָלֶיהָ, כָּפָה תַּרְקַב וְיָשַׁב עָלֶיהָ יְהֵא טָמֵא, תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״אֲשֶׁר יֵשֵׁב עָלָיו הַזָּב״ — מִי שֶׁמְיוּחָד לִישִׁיבָה, יָצָא זֶה שֶׁאוֹמְרִים לוֹ: עֲמוֹד וְנַעֲשֶׂה מְלַאכְתֵּנוּ.
And with regard to the essence of Rabbi Yoḥanan’s statement, the Gemara asks: And does Rabbi Yoḥanan not require that the vessel’s new usage must be of the same type as the original labor in order for it to retain its ritual impurity after it has undergone change? Wasn’t it taught in a baraita: “Every bed on which a zav is lying is ritually impure and every vessel on which he is sitting shall be ritually impure” (Leviticus 15:4). I might have thought, based on this verse, that if one overturned a vessel the size of a se’a and sat on it, or overturned a vessel the size of a half-se’a [tarkav] and sat on it, the vessel would become ritually impure. Therefore, the verse states: On which the zav is sitting, i.e., that which is designated for sitting, excluding that vessel with regard to which one says to the zav: Stand and we will perform our labor with the vessel. In that case, because the vessel is primarily used for purposes other than sitting, it does not become ritually impure even when the zav sits on it.
רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר אוֹמֵר: בְּמִדְרָסוֹת אוֹמְרִים ״עֲמוֹד וְנַעֲשֶׂה מְלַאכְתֵּנוּ״, וְאֵין אוֹמְרִים בִּטְמֵא מֵת ״עֲמוֹד וְנַעֲשֶׂה מְלַאכְתֵּנוּ״. וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: אַף אוֹמֵר בִּטְמֵא מֵת ״עֲמוֹד וְנַעֲשֶׂה מְלַאכְתֵּנוּ״.
There is a dispute between the amora’im on this matter: Rabbi Elazar says: With regard to ritual impurity imparted by treading [midras], i.e., the halakhot pertaining to a zav or to a menstruating woman who sits or lies down on an object, one states the principle: Stand and we will perform our labor to maintain the purity of the vessel. However, one does not state with regard to one who is ritually impure due to a corpse: Stand and we will perform our labor to maintain the purity of the vessel. In other words, an object that became ritually impure through contact with a corpse and was subsequently broken, since it is possible to use it for some other purpose, it remains a vessel and susceptible to ritual impurity. However, Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Even with regard to one who is ritually impure due to a corpse, one states the principle: Stand and we will perform our labor to maintain the purity of the vessel. According to his opinion, a vessel that is no longer suited for its initial use, even though it serves another purpose, is considered broken. Therefore, the bell, since it is no longer suited for ringing, remains ritually pure according to Rabbi Yoḥanan’s opinion, even though it remains suited for drinking water.
אֵיפוֹךְ קַמַּיְיתָא. וּמַאי חֲזֵית דְּאָפְכַתְּ קַמַּיְיתָא? אֵיפוֹךְ בָּתְרָיְיתָא!
The Gemara answers: Reverse the opinions in the first dispute: It was not Rabbi Yoḥanan who gave that reason; it was Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina. The Gemara asks: And what did you see that led you to reverse the first? Reverse the opinions of Rabbi Yoḥanan and Rabbi Elazar in the latter dispute, and avoid a contradiction in the statements of Rabbi Yoḥanan in that way.
הָא שָׁמְעִינַן לֵיהּ לְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן דְּבָעֵי מֵעֵין מְלָאכָה רִאשׁוֹנָה. דְּתַנְיָא: סַנְדָּל שֶׁל בְּהֵמָה שֶׁל מַתֶּכֶת טָמֵא. לְמַאי חֲזֵי? אָמַר רַב: רָאוּי לִשְׁתּוֹת בּוֹ מַיִם בַּמִּלְחָמָה. וְרַבִּי חֲנִינָא אָמַר: רָאוּי לָסוּךְ בּוֹ שֶׁמֶן בַּמִּלְחָמָה. וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: בְּשָׁעָה שֶׁבּוֹרֵחַ מִן הַקְּרָב מַנִּיחוֹ בְּרַגְלָיו וְרָץ עַל קוֹצִין וְעַל הַבַּרְקָנִים.
The Gemara answers: That is because we learned elsewhere that Rabbi Yoḥanan requires that the vessel’s new use will be of the same type as the original labor. His opinion here is consistent with his opinion there. As it was taught in a baraita: The shoe of an animal, if it is made of metal, can become ritually impure. The Gemara asks: For what use by people is it suited? Vessels designated for animal use do not become ritually impure unless they have some use for people. Rav said: It is suited for use as a vessel from which one could drink water in war when there are no other available vessels. And Rabbi Ḥanina said: It is suited for use as a vessel from which one could smear oil on his body during a war. And Rabbi Yoḥanan said: When he flees from the battlefield he places it on his foot and runs over thorns and the thistles. Apparently, the only use for the shoe of an animal that would render it capable of becoming ritually impure when used by a person is use of the same type as the original labor.
מַאי בֵּין רַב לְרַבִּי חֲנִינָא? אִיכָּא בֵּינַיְיהוּ דִּמְאִיס.
The Gemara asks parenthetically: What is the practical difference between the explanation of Rav and that of Rabbi Ḥanina? The Gemara answers: There is a practical difference between them in a case where the sandal is repulsive and dirty. In Rav’s opinion, since one would not drink water from it, it cannot become ritually impure. According to Rabbi Ḥanina, since one could still use it to spread oil on his body, it can become ritually impure.
בֵּין רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן לְרַבִּי חֲנִינָא? אִיכָּא בֵּינַיְיהוּ דְּיַקִּיר.
What is the practical difference between the explanation of Rabbi Yoḥanan and that of Rabbi Ḥanina? There is a practical difference between them in a case where the shoe is heavy. It is suited for spreading oil; it is not suited for one to place on his foot. Therefore, it cannot become ritually impure according to Rabbi Yoḥanan.
וְלֹא בְּעִיר שֶׁל זָהָב. מַאי ״בְּעִיר שֶׁל זָהָב״? רַבָּה בַּר בַּר חָנָה אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: יְרוּשָׁלַיִם דְּדַהֲבָא,
We learned in the mishna: And neither may a woman go out on Shabbat to the public domain with a city of gold. The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of: With a city of gold? Rabba bar bar Ḥana said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Jerusalem of Gold, a gold tiara engraved with a depiction of the city of Jerusalem,
כְּדַעֲבַד לֵיהּ רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא לִדְבֵיתְהוּ.
like the one that Rabbi Akiva made for his wife.
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: לֹא תֵּצֵא אִשָּׁה בְּעִיר שֶׁל זָהָב, וְאִם יָצְתָה חַיֶּיבֶת חַטָּאת, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: לֹא תֵּצֵא, וְאִם יָצְתָה — פְּטוּרָה. רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: יוֹצְאָה אִשָּׁה בְּעִיר שֶׁל זָהָב לְכַתְּחִלָּה.
And on this subject, the Sages taught in the Tosefta: A woman may not go out into the public domain on Shabbat with a city of gold ornament. And if she went out with it into the public domain she is liable to bring a sin-offering; that is the statement of Rabbi Meir. And the Rabbis say: She may not go out with it ab initio, and if she went out she is exempt. And Rabbi Eliezer says: A woman may go out with a city of gold ornament ab initio.
בְּמַאי קָמִיפַּלְגִי? רַבִּי מֵאִיר סָבַר מַשּׂוֹי הוּא. וְרַבָּנַן סָבְרִי תַּכְשִׁיט הוּא — דִּילְמָא שָׁלְפָא וּמַחְוְיָא לֵיהּ וְאָתְיָא לְאֵתוֹיֵי. וְרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר סָבַר: מַאן דִּרְכֵּהּ לְמִיפַּק בְּעִיר שֶׁל זָהָב — אִשָּׁה חֲשׁוּבָה, וְאִשָּׁה חֲשׁוּבָה לָא שָׁלְפָא וּמַחְוְיָא.
The Gemara explains: With regard to what principle do they disagree? Rabbi Meir holds that it is considered a burden and not an ornament, and one who carries a burden into the public domain is liable to bring a sin-offering. And the Rabbis hold that it is an ornament. Why, then, did they prohibit going out into the public domain wearing it? They are concerned lest she remove it, and show it to another, and come to carry it in the public domain. And Rabbi Eliezer holds: Whose manner is it to go out with a city of gold ornament? Only an important woman, and in that case there is no concern, as an important woman does not remove ornaments and show them to others.
כְּלִילָא, רַב אָסַר וּשְׁמוּאֵל שָׁרֵי.
After discussing going out into the public domain on Shabbat with a city of gold ornament, the Gemara discusses other ornaments. There is a dispute among amora’im with regard to a kelila, which is a tiara-like ornament. Rav prohibited going out with it, and Shmuel permitted doing so.
דַּאֲנִיסְכָּא, כּוּלֵּי עָלְמָא לָא פְּלִיגִי דַּאֲסִיר. כִּי פְּלִיגִי דַּאֲרוּקְתָּא: מָר סָבַר אֲנִיסְכָּא עִקָּר, וּמָר סָבַר אֲרוּקְתָּא עִקָּר.
The Gemara sets the parameters of the disagreement: With a kelila made of metal, everyone agrees that it is prohibited to go out into the public domain. Where they disagree is in the case of a woven fabric inlaid with metal. One Sage, Rav, holds that in that type of ornament the metal is the primary element, and it is prohibited. And one Sage, Shmuel, holds that the woven fabric is the primary element, and it is consequently permitted.
רַב אָשֵׁי מַתְנֵי לְקוּלָּא: דַּאֲרוּקְתָּא דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא לָא פְּלִיגִי דִּשְׁרֵי. כִּי פְּלִיגִי דַּאֲנִיסְכָּא: מָר סָבַר דִּילְמָא שָׁלְפָא וּמַחְוְיָא וְאָתֵי לְאֵתוּיֵי, וּמָר סָבַר מַאן דִּרְכֵּהּ לְמִיפַּק בִּכְלִילָא — אִשָּׁה חֲשׁוּבָה, וְאִשָּׁה חֲשׁוּבָה לָא שָׁלְפָא וּמַחְוְיָא.
Rav Ashi taught this disagreement with a lenient interpretation, as he said: With a kelila of woven fabric, everyone agrees that it is permitted to go out into the public domain. Where they disagree is in the case of a metal ornament. One Sage, Rav, holds that it is prohibited because there is concern lest she remove it, and show it to another, and come to carry it in the public domain. And one Sage, Shmuel, holds that it is permitted. Whose manner is to go out with a kelila ornament? Only an important woman; and an important woman does not remove ornaments and show them to others.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר בַּר חָנָה לְרַב יוֹסֵף: בְּפֵרוּשׁ אֲמַרְתְּ לַן מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרַב — ״כְּלִילָא שְׁרֵי״.
On the same topic, Rav Shmuel bar bar Ḥana said to Rav Yosef who, due to illness, forgot his learning: You explicitly said to us in the name of Rav: With regard to a kelila, it is permitted to go out into the public domain on Shabbat.
אֲמַרוּ לֵיהּ לְרַב: אֲתָא גַּבְרָא רַבָּה אֲרִיכָא לִנְהַרְדְּעָא וּמִטְּלַע, וְדָרֵשׁ ״כְּלִילָא שְׁרֵי״. אֲמַר: מַאן גַּבְרָא רַבָּה אֲרִיכָא [דְּאִיטְּלַע] — לֵוִי, שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ נָח נַפְשֵׁיהּ דְּרַבִּי אַפָּס וִיתִיב רַבִּי חֲנִינָא בְּרֵישָׁא, וְלָא הֲוָה לֵיהּ אִינִישׁ לְלֵוִי לְמֵיתַב גַּבֵּיהּ, וְקָאָתֵי לְהָכָא.
The Gemara relates that one day they said to Rav: A great, tall man came to Neharde’a and he was limping. And he taught: With a kelila, it is permitted to go out into the public domain on Shabbat. Rav said: Who is a great, tall man who limps? Levi. Conclude from this that Rabbi Afes passed away and Rabbi Ḥanina is sitting at the head of the yeshiva in Eretz Yisrael in his place. And, consequently, Levi had no one before whom to sit and study and he came here. As long as Rabbi Afes headed the yeshiva, Rabbi Ḥanina would sit outside the study hall. Entering the study hall would indicate that he accepted the authority of Rabbi Afes. Rabbi Ḥanina, who was a great man, refused to do so. In deference to Rabbi Ḥanina, Levi would sit with him as a colleague outside the study hall. When Levi arrived from Eretz Yisrael, it was clear that Rabbi Afes must have died. Levi, who considered himself Rabbi Ḥanina’s equal in terms of both scholarship and age, did not want to defer to Rabbi Ḥanina’s authority and decided to go to elsewhere, to Babylonia.
וְדִילְמָא נָח נַפְשֵׁיהּ דְּרַבִּי חֲנִינָא, וְרַבִּי אַפָּס כִּדְקָאֵי קָאֵי, וְלָא הֲוָה לֵיהּ אִינִישׁ לְלֵוִי לְמֵיתַב גַּבֵּיהּ, וְקָאָתֵי לְהָכָא? אִם אִיתָא דְּרַבִּי חֲנִינָא שְׁכֵיב — לֵוִי לְרַבִּי אַפָּס מִיכָּף הֲוָה כְּיִיף לֵיהּ. וְתוּ, דְּרַבִּי חֲנִינָא לָא סַגִּי דְּלָא מָלֵיךְ, דְּכִי הֲוָה קָא נִיחָא נַפְשֵׁיהּ דְּרַבִּי אָמַר: חֲנִינָא בְּרַבִּי חָמָא יֵשֵׁב בָּרֹאשׁ. וּכְתִיב בְּהוּ בְּצַדִּיקִים: ״וְתִגְזַר אֹמֶר וְיָקׇם לָךְ וְגוֹ׳״.
The Gemara asks: How did Rav arrive at that particular conclusion? And perhaps Rabbi Ḥanina died and Rabbi Afes remained standing in his position at the head of the yeshiva as he stood previously; and Levi had no one with whom to sit outside the study hall, and that is why he came here? The Gemara answers that that could not be the case for two reasons. First, if it were so, that Rabbi Ḥanina died, Levi would have been subject to the authority of Rabbi Afes. It was only in deference to Rabbi Ḥanina that Levi did not enter the study hall. And furthermore, it could not be that Rabbi Ḥanina died and did not reign as head of the yeshiva, as when Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi died, he said in his dying testament: Ḥanina, son of Rabbi Ḥama, shall sit at the head of the yeshiva. And of the righteous it is written: “You will decree a saying and it will be established for you, and the light will shine on your ways” (Job 22:28). Since the statement that Rabbi Ḥanina will serve at the head of the yeshiva crossed the lips of a righteous person, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, it is inconceivable that it would not have been realized.
דְּרַשׁ לֵוִי בִּנְהַרְדְּעָא ״כְּלִילָא שְׁרֵי״. נְפוּק עֶשְׂרִין וְאַרְבַּע כְּלִילֵי מִכּוּלַּהּ נְהַרְדְּעָא. דְּרַשׁ רַבָּה בַּר אֲבוּהּ בְּמָחוֹזָא ״כְּלִילָא שְׁרֵי״, וּנְפַקוּ תַּמְנֵי סְרֵי כְּלִילֵי מֵחֲדָא מְבוֹאָה.
The Gemara returns to the subject of kelila. When Levi taught in Neharde’a that with the kelila ornament, one is permitted to go out into the public domain on Shabbat, twenty-four women wearing the kelila ornament went out into the public domain from all of Neharde’a. When Rabba bar Avuh taught in Meḥoza that the kelila ornament is permitted, eighteen women wearing the kelila ornament went out from one alleyway. Meḥoza was a wealthy mercantile city, and many women there owned precious jewelry.
אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב שְׁמוּאֵל: קַמְרָא שְׁרֵי. אִיכָּא דְאָמְרִי דַּאֲרוּקְתָּא, וְאָמַר רַב סָפְרָא: מִידֵּי דְּהָוֵה אַטַּלִּית מוּזְהֶבֶת.
Rav Yehuda said that Rav Shmuel said: With a precious gilded belt [kamra], a woman is permitted to go out into the public domain on Shabbat. Some say that he was referring to a belt made of woven fabric and inlaid with gold. And Rav Safra said: It is permitted just as it is permitted in the case of a gilded cloak.
וְאִיכָּא דְאָמְרִי דַּאֲנִיסְכָּא, וְאָמַר רַב סָפְרָא: מִידֵּי דְּהָוֵה אַאַבְנֵט שֶׁל מְלָכִים.
And some say that it is referring to a belt made entirely of metal. And Rav Safra said: It is permitted just as it is permitted to go out into the public domain on Shabbat with the belt of kings made entirely of gold.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רָבִינָא לְרַב אָשֵׁי: קַמְרָא עִילָּוֵי הֶמְיָינָא מַאי? אֲמַר לֵיהּ תְּרֵי הֶמְיָינֵי קָאָמְרַתְּ.
Ravina said to Rav Ashi: With regard to going out with a gilded belt over another belt [hemyana], what is the halakha? He said to him: Two belts you said; it is certainly uncommon to wear two belts. Therefore, one of them is a burden.
אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי: הַאי רְסוֹקָא, אִי אִית לֵיהּ מַפְרְחָיָיתָא — שְׁרֵי, וְאִי לָא — אֲסִיר.
Rav Ashi said: This short cloak; if it has short straps with which to tie it, it is permitted to go out with it, and if not, it is prohibited.
וְלֹא בְּקַטְלָא. מַאי קַטְלָא — מְנַקְּטָא פָּארֵי. נְזָמִים — נִזְמֵי הָאָף.
We learned in the mishna: And a woman may not go out on Shabbat with a katla. The Gemara explains: What is a katla? A type of small bib hung from the neck. The nezamim mentioned in the mishna with which a woman may not go out on Shabbat refer to nose rings, not earrings.
וְלֹא בְּטַבַּעַת שֶׁאֵין עָלֶיהָ חוֹתָם. הָא יֵשׁ עָלֶיהָ חוֹתָם — חַיֶּיבֶת. אַלְמָא לָאו תַּכְשִׁיט הוּא.
We learned in the mishna: Nor with a ring that has no seal on it. By inference: If it does have a seal on it, she is liable to bring a sin-offering. She is only exempt from bringing a sacrifice when she goes out with a ring that does not have a seal on it, which is an ornament; however, a ring with a seal on it, typically used by men for sealing documents, is considered a burden for a woman on Shabbat. Apparently, that ring is not an ornament.
וּרְמִינְהוּ: תַּכְשִׁיטֵי נָשִׁים טְמֵאִים. וְאֵלּוּ הֵן תַּכְשִׁיטֵי נָשִׁים: קַטְלָאוֹת, נְזָמִים וְטַבָּעוֹת, וְטַבַּעַת בֵּין שֶׁיֵּשׁ עָלֶיהָ חוֹתָם בֵּין שֶׁאֵין עָלֶיהָ חוֹתָם, וְנִזְמֵי הָאָף.
The Gemara raises a contradiction from a mishna in tractate Kelim: Women’s ornaments can become ritually impure. And these are women’s ornaments: Bibs; earrings; and rings; and a ring whether it has a seal on it or whether it does not have a seal on it; and nose rings. Apparently, even a ring that has a seal on it is considered a woman’s ornament.
וְאָמַר רַבִּי זֵירָא, לָא קַשְׁיָא: הָא רַבִּי נְחֶמְיָה, הָא רַבָּנַן.
And Rabbi Zeira said: This is not difficult. Rather, this ruling in our mishna, which distinguishes between a ring with a seal and a ring without a seal, is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Neḥemya; that ruling in the mishna in tractate Kelim, which does not distinguish between rings, is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis.
דְּתַנְיָא: הִיא שֶׁל מַתֶּכֶת וְחוֹתָמָהּ שֶׁל אַלְמוֹג — טְמֵאָה, הִיא שֶׁל אַלְמוֹג וְחוֹתָמָהּ שֶׁל מַתֶּכֶת — טְהוֹרָה, וְרַבִּי נְחֶמְיָה מְטַמֵּא, שֶׁהָיָה רַבִּי נְחֶמְיָה אוֹמֵר: בְּטַבַּעַת הַלֵּךְ אַחַר חוֹתָמָהּ. בְּעוֹל הַלֵּךְ אַחַר סִמְלוֹנָיו.
As it was taught in a baraita: If the ring were made of metal and its seal was made of coral, it can become ritually impure because the primary component of the ring is metal, a material that can become ritually impure. If the ring were made of coral and its seal of metal, it is ritually pure and cannot become ritually impure. Rabbi Neḥemya deems it ritually impure, as Rabbi Neḥemya would say: With regard to a ring, follow its seal; if the seal were made of material that can become ritually impure, the entire ring can become ritually impure, and if it were made of material that cannot become ritually impure, the entire ring remains pure. The same is true with regard to a yoke of an animal: Follow its rods. Rods are placed in the yoke to fasten it to the animal; the component material of the rods determines whether or not the entire yoke can become ritually impure.
Follow
New to Talmud?
Check out our resources designed to help you navigate a page of Talmud – and study at the pace, level and style that fits you.
The Hadran Women’s Tapestry
Meet the diverse women learning Gemara at Hadran and hear their stories.
Retirement and Covid converged to provide me with the opportunity to commit to daily Talmud study in October 2020. I dove into the middle of Eruvin and continued to navigate Seder Moed, with Rabannit Michelle as my guide. I have developed more confidence in my learning as I completed each masechet and look forward to completing the Daf Yomi cycle so that I can begin again!
Rhona Fink
San Diego, United States
When I began the previous cycle, I promised myself that if I stuck with it, I would reward myself with a trip to Israel. Little did I know that the trip would involve attending the first ever women’s siyum and being inspired by so many learners. I am now over 2 years into my second cycle and being part of this large, diverse, fascinating learning family has enhanced my learning exponentially.
Shira Krebs
Minnesota, United States
When the new cycle began, I thought, If not now, when? I’d just turned 72. I feel like a tourist on a tour bus passing astonishing scenery each day. Rabbanit Michelle is my beloved tour guide. When the cycle ends, I’ll be 80. I pray that I’ll have strength and mind to continue the journey to glimpse a little more. My grandchildren think having a daf-learning savta is cool!
Wendy Dickstein
Jerusalem, Israel
When I began learning Daf Yomi at the beginning of the current cycle, I was preparing for an upcoming surgery and thought that learning the Daf would be something positive I could do each day during my recovery, even if I accomplished nothing else. I had no idea what a lifeline learning the Daf would turn out to be in so many ways.
Laura Shechter
Lexington, MA, United States
I started learning Daf Yomi in January 2020 after watching my grandfather, Mayer Penstein z”l, finish shas with the previous cycle. My grandfather made learning so much fun was so proud that his grandchildren wanted to join him. I was also inspired by Ilana Kurshan’s book, If All the Seas Were Ink. Two years in, I can say that it has enriched my life in so many ways.
Leeza Hirt Wilner
New York, United States
Hadran entered my life after the last Siyum Hashaas, January 2020. I was inspired and challenged simultaneously, having never thought of learning Gemara. With my family’s encouragement, I googled “daf yomi for women”. A perfecr fit!
I especially enjoy when Rabbanit Michelle connects the daf to contemporary issues to share at the shabbat table e.g: looking at the Kohen during duchaning. Toda rabba
Marsha Wasserman
Jerusalem, Israel
I started learning Jan 2020 when I heard the new cycle was starting. I had tried during the last cycle and didn’t make it past a few weeks. Learning online from old men didn’t speak to my soul and I knew Talmud had to be a soul journey for me. Enter Hadran! Talmud from Rabbanit Michelle Farber from a woman’s perspective, a mother’s perspective and a modern perspective. Motivated to continue!
Keren Carter
Brentwood, California, United States
I’ve been wanting to do Daf Yomi for years, but always wanted to start at the beginning and not in the middle of things. When the opportunity came in 2020, I decided: “this is now the time!” I’ve been posting my journey daily on social media, tracking my progress (#DafYomi); now it’s fully integrated into my daily routines. I’ve also inspired my partner to join, too!
Joséphine Altzman
Teaneck, United States
At almost 70 I am just beginning my journey with Talmud and Hadran. I began not late, but right when I was called to learn. It is never too late to begin! The understanding patience of staff and participants with more experience and knowledge has been fabulous. The joy of learning never stops and for me. It is a new life, a new light, a new depth of love of The Holy One, Blessed be He.
Deborah Hoffman-Wade
Richmond, CA, United States
I had no formal learning in Talmud until I began my studies in the Joint Program where in 1976 I was one of the few, if not the only, woman talmud major. It was superior training for law school and enabled me to approach my legal studies with a foundation . In 2018, I began daf yomi listening to Rabbanit MIchelle’s pod cast and my daily talmud studies are one of the highlights of my life.
Terri Krivosha
Minneapolis, United States
I’ve been studying Talmud since the ’90s, and decided to take on Daf Yomi two years ago. I wanted to attempt the challenge of a day-to-day, very Jewish activity. Some days are so interesting and some days are so boring. But I’m still here.
Wendy Rozov
Phoenix, AZ, United States
A few years back, after reading Ilana Kurshan’s book, “If All The Seas Were Ink,” I began pondering the crazy, outlandish idea of beginning the Daf Yomi cycle. Beginning in December, 2019, a month before the previous cycle ended, I “auditioned” 30 different podcasts in 30 days, and ultimately chose to take the plunge with Hadran and Rabbanit Michelle. Such joy!
Cindy Dolgin
HUNTINGTON, United States
I started with Ze Kollel in Berlin, directed by Jeremy Borowitz for Hillel Deutschland. We read Masechet Megillah chapter 4 and each participant wrote his commentary on a Sugia that particularly impressed him. I wrote six poems about different Sugiot!
Fascinated by the discussions on Talmud I continued to learn with Rabanit Michelle Farber and am currently taking part in the Tikun Olam course.
Yael Merlini
Berlin, Germany
I started learning on January 5, 2020. When I complete the 7+ year cycle I will be 70 years old. I had been intimidated by those who said that I needed to study Talmud in a traditional way with a chevruta, but I decided the learning was more important to me than the method. Thankful for Daf Yomi for Women helping me catch up when I fall behind, and also being able to celebrate with each Siyum!
Pamela Elisheva
Bakersfield, United States
I start learning Daf Yomi in January 2020. The daily learning with Rabbanit Michelle has kept me grounded in this very uncertain time. Despite everything going on – the Pandemic, my personal life, climate change, war, etc… I know I can count on Hadran’s podcast to bring a smile to my face.
Deb Engel
Los Angeles, United States
Ive been learning Gmara since 5th grade and always loved it. Have always wanted to do Daf Yomi and now with Michelle Farber’s online classes it made it much easier to do! Really enjoying the experience thank you!!
Lisa Lawrence
Neve Daniel, Israel
With Rabbanit Dr. Naomi Cohen in the Women’s Talmud class, over 30 years ago. It was a “known” class and it was accepted, because of who taught. Since then I have also studied with Avigail Gross-Gelman and Dr. Gabriel Hazut for about a year). Years ago, in a shiur in my shul, I did know about Persians doing 3 things with their clothes on. They opened the shiur to woman after that!
Sharon Mink
Haifa, Israel
A friend mentioned that she was starting Daf Yomi in January 2020. I had heard of it and thought, why not? I decided to try it – go day by day and not think about the seven plus year commitment.
Fast forward today, over two years in and I can’t imagine my life without Daf Yomi. It’s part of my morning ritual. If I have a busy day ahead of me I set my alarm to get up early to finish the day’s daf
Debbie Fitzerman
Ontario, Canada
In early January of 2020, I learned about Siyyum HaShas and Daf Yomi via Tablet Magazine’s brief daily podcast about the Daf. I found it compelling and fascinating. Soon I discovered Hadran; since then I have learned the Daf daily with Rabbanit Michelle Cohen Farber. The Daf has permeated my every hour, and has transformed and magnified my place within the Jewish Universe.
Lisa Berkelhammer
San Francisco, CA , United States
3 years ago, I joined Rabbanit Michelle to organize the unprecedented Siyum HaShas event in Jerusalem for thousands of women. The whole experience was so inspiring that I decided then to start learning the daf and see how I would go…. and I’m still at it. I often listen to the Daf on my bike in mornings, surrounded by both the external & the internal beauty of Eretz Yisrael & Am Yisrael!
Lisa Kolodny
Raanana, Israel
Shabbat 59
הוֹאִיל וְרָאוּי לְהַקִּישׁוֹ עַל גַּבֵּי חֶרֶס.
It is considered a vessel since a bell without a clapper is suited to strike on earthenware and produce a sound of similar quality to that produced by a clapper. If so, even when the clapper is removed, the bell may still be used for its original purpose.
אִיתְּמַר נָמֵי, אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי חֲנִינָא: הוֹאִיל וְרָאוּי לְהַקִּישׁוֹ עַל גַּבֵּי חֶרֶס. רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: הוֹאִיל וְרָאוּי לְגַמֵּעַ בּוֹ מַיִם לְתִינוֹק.
It was also stated that Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, said: It is considered a vessel, since a bell without a clapper is suited to strike on earthenware. Rabbi Yoḥanan said: It is considered a vessel, since it is suited for use to give water to a child to drink.
וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן לָא בָּעֵי מֵעֵין מְלָאכָה רִאשׁוֹנָה? וְהָתַנְיָא: ״וְכׇל כְּלִי אֲשֶׁר יֵשֵׁב עָלָיו וְגוֹ׳״ — יָכוֹל כָּפָה סְאָה וְיָשַׁב עָלֶיהָ, כָּפָה תַּרְקַב וְיָשַׁב עָלֶיהָ יְהֵא טָמֵא, תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״אֲשֶׁר יֵשֵׁב עָלָיו הַזָּב״ — מִי שֶׁמְיוּחָד לִישִׁיבָה, יָצָא זֶה שֶׁאוֹמְרִים לוֹ: עֲמוֹד וְנַעֲשֶׂה מְלַאכְתֵּנוּ.
And with regard to the essence of Rabbi Yoḥanan’s statement, the Gemara asks: And does Rabbi Yoḥanan not require that the vessel’s new usage must be of the same type as the original labor in order for it to retain its ritual impurity after it has undergone change? Wasn’t it taught in a baraita: “Every bed on which a zav is lying is ritually impure and every vessel on which he is sitting shall be ritually impure” (Leviticus 15:4). I might have thought, based on this verse, that if one overturned a vessel the size of a se’a and sat on it, or overturned a vessel the size of a half-se’a [tarkav] and sat on it, the vessel would become ritually impure. Therefore, the verse states: On which the zav is sitting, i.e., that which is designated for sitting, excluding that vessel with regard to which one says to the zav: Stand and we will perform our labor with the vessel. In that case, because the vessel is primarily used for purposes other than sitting, it does not become ritually impure even when the zav sits on it.
רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר אוֹמֵר: בְּמִדְרָסוֹת אוֹמְרִים ״עֲמוֹד וְנַעֲשֶׂה מְלַאכְתֵּנוּ״, וְאֵין אוֹמְרִים בִּטְמֵא מֵת ״עֲמוֹד וְנַעֲשֶׂה מְלַאכְתֵּנוּ״. וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: אַף אוֹמֵר בִּטְמֵא מֵת ״עֲמוֹד וְנַעֲשֶׂה מְלַאכְתֵּנוּ״.
There is a dispute between the amora’im on this matter: Rabbi Elazar says: With regard to ritual impurity imparted by treading [midras], i.e., the halakhot pertaining to a zav or to a menstruating woman who sits or lies down on an object, one states the principle: Stand and we will perform our labor to maintain the purity of the vessel. However, one does not state with regard to one who is ritually impure due to a corpse: Stand and we will perform our labor to maintain the purity of the vessel. In other words, an object that became ritually impure through contact with a corpse and was subsequently broken, since it is possible to use it for some other purpose, it remains a vessel and susceptible to ritual impurity. However, Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Even with regard to one who is ritually impure due to a corpse, one states the principle: Stand and we will perform our labor to maintain the purity of the vessel. According to his opinion, a vessel that is no longer suited for its initial use, even though it serves another purpose, is considered broken. Therefore, the bell, since it is no longer suited for ringing, remains ritually pure according to Rabbi Yoḥanan’s opinion, even though it remains suited for drinking water.
אֵיפוֹךְ קַמַּיְיתָא. וּמַאי חֲזֵית דְּאָפְכַתְּ קַמַּיְיתָא? אֵיפוֹךְ בָּתְרָיְיתָא!
The Gemara answers: Reverse the opinions in the first dispute: It was not Rabbi Yoḥanan who gave that reason; it was Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina. The Gemara asks: And what did you see that led you to reverse the first? Reverse the opinions of Rabbi Yoḥanan and Rabbi Elazar in the latter dispute, and avoid a contradiction in the statements of Rabbi Yoḥanan in that way.
הָא שָׁמְעִינַן לֵיהּ לְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן דְּבָעֵי מֵעֵין מְלָאכָה רִאשׁוֹנָה. דְּתַנְיָא: סַנְדָּל שֶׁל בְּהֵמָה שֶׁל מַתֶּכֶת טָמֵא. לְמַאי חֲזֵי? אָמַר רַב: רָאוּי לִשְׁתּוֹת בּוֹ מַיִם בַּמִּלְחָמָה. וְרַבִּי חֲנִינָא אָמַר: רָאוּי לָסוּךְ בּוֹ שֶׁמֶן בַּמִּלְחָמָה. וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: בְּשָׁעָה שֶׁבּוֹרֵחַ מִן הַקְּרָב מַנִּיחוֹ בְּרַגְלָיו וְרָץ עַל קוֹצִין וְעַל הַבַּרְקָנִים.
The Gemara answers: That is because we learned elsewhere that Rabbi Yoḥanan requires that the vessel’s new use will be of the same type as the original labor. His opinion here is consistent with his opinion there. As it was taught in a baraita: The shoe of an animal, if it is made of metal, can become ritually impure. The Gemara asks: For what use by people is it suited? Vessels designated for animal use do not become ritually impure unless they have some use for people. Rav said: It is suited for use as a vessel from which one could drink water in war when there are no other available vessels. And Rabbi Ḥanina said: It is suited for use as a vessel from which one could smear oil on his body during a war. And Rabbi Yoḥanan said: When he flees from the battlefield he places it on his foot and runs over thorns and the thistles. Apparently, the only use for the shoe of an animal that would render it capable of becoming ritually impure when used by a person is use of the same type as the original labor.
מַאי בֵּין רַב לְרַבִּי חֲנִינָא? אִיכָּא בֵּינַיְיהוּ דִּמְאִיס.
The Gemara asks parenthetically: What is the practical difference between the explanation of Rav and that of Rabbi Ḥanina? The Gemara answers: There is a practical difference between them in a case where the sandal is repulsive and dirty. In Rav’s opinion, since one would not drink water from it, it cannot become ritually impure. According to Rabbi Ḥanina, since one could still use it to spread oil on his body, it can become ritually impure.
בֵּין רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן לְרַבִּי חֲנִינָא? אִיכָּא בֵּינַיְיהוּ דְּיַקִּיר.
What is the practical difference between the explanation of Rabbi Yoḥanan and that of Rabbi Ḥanina? There is a practical difference between them in a case where the shoe is heavy. It is suited for spreading oil; it is not suited for one to place on his foot. Therefore, it cannot become ritually impure according to Rabbi Yoḥanan.
וְלֹא בְּעִיר שֶׁל זָהָב. מַאי ״בְּעִיר שֶׁל זָהָב״? רַבָּה בַּר בַּר חָנָה אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: יְרוּשָׁלַיִם דְּדַהֲבָא,
We learned in the mishna: And neither may a woman go out on Shabbat to the public domain with a city of gold. The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of: With a city of gold? Rabba bar bar Ḥana said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Jerusalem of Gold, a gold tiara engraved with a depiction of the city of Jerusalem,
כְּדַעֲבַד לֵיהּ רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא לִדְבֵיתְהוּ.
like the one that Rabbi Akiva made for his wife.
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: לֹא תֵּצֵא אִשָּׁה בְּעִיר שֶׁל זָהָב, וְאִם יָצְתָה חַיֶּיבֶת חַטָּאת, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: לֹא תֵּצֵא, וְאִם יָצְתָה — פְּטוּרָה. רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: יוֹצְאָה אִשָּׁה בְּעִיר שֶׁל זָהָב לְכַתְּחִלָּה.
And on this subject, the Sages taught in the Tosefta: A woman may not go out into the public domain on Shabbat with a city of gold ornament. And if she went out with it into the public domain she is liable to bring a sin-offering; that is the statement of Rabbi Meir. And the Rabbis say: She may not go out with it ab initio, and if she went out she is exempt. And Rabbi Eliezer says: A woman may go out with a city of gold ornament ab initio.
בְּמַאי קָמִיפַּלְגִי? רַבִּי מֵאִיר סָבַר מַשּׂוֹי הוּא. וְרַבָּנַן סָבְרִי תַּכְשִׁיט הוּא — דִּילְמָא שָׁלְפָא וּמַחְוְיָא לֵיהּ וְאָתְיָא לְאֵתוֹיֵי. וְרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר סָבַר: מַאן דִּרְכֵּהּ לְמִיפַּק בְּעִיר שֶׁל זָהָב — אִשָּׁה חֲשׁוּבָה, וְאִשָּׁה חֲשׁוּבָה לָא שָׁלְפָא וּמַחְוְיָא.
The Gemara explains: With regard to what principle do they disagree? Rabbi Meir holds that it is considered a burden and not an ornament, and one who carries a burden into the public domain is liable to bring a sin-offering. And the Rabbis hold that it is an ornament. Why, then, did they prohibit going out into the public domain wearing it? They are concerned lest she remove it, and show it to another, and come to carry it in the public domain. And Rabbi Eliezer holds: Whose manner is it to go out with a city of gold ornament? Only an important woman, and in that case there is no concern, as an important woman does not remove ornaments and show them to others.
כְּלִילָא, רַב אָסַר וּשְׁמוּאֵל שָׁרֵי.
After discussing going out into the public domain on Shabbat with a city of gold ornament, the Gemara discusses other ornaments. There is a dispute among amora’im with regard to a kelila, which is a tiara-like ornament. Rav prohibited going out with it, and Shmuel permitted doing so.
דַּאֲנִיסְכָּא, כּוּלֵּי עָלְמָא לָא פְּלִיגִי דַּאֲסִיר. כִּי פְּלִיגִי דַּאֲרוּקְתָּא: מָר סָבַר אֲנִיסְכָּא עִקָּר, וּמָר סָבַר אֲרוּקְתָּא עִקָּר.
The Gemara sets the parameters of the disagreement: With a kelila made of metal, everyone agrees that it is prohibited to go out into the public domain. Where they disagree is in the case of a woven fabric inlaid with metal. One Sage, Rav, holds that in that type of ornament the metal is the primary element, and it is prohibited. And one Sage, Shmuel, holds that the woven fabric is the primary element, and it is consequently permitted.
רַב אָשֵׁי מַתְנֵי לְקוּלָּא: דַּאֲרוּקְתָּא דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא לָא פְּלִיגִי דִּשְׁרֵי. כִּי פְּלִיגִי דַּאֲנִיסְכָּא: מָר סָבַר דִּילְמָא שָׁלְפָא וּמַחְוְיָא וְאָתֵי לְאֵתוּיֵי, וּמָר סָבַר מַאן דִּרְכֵּהּ לְמִיפַּק בִּכְלִילָא — אִשָּׁה חֲשׁוּבָה, וְאִשָּׁה חֲשׁוּבָה לָא שָׁלְפָא וּמַחְוְיָא.
Rav Ashi taught this disagreement with a lenient interpretation, as he said: With a kelila of woven fabric, everyone agrees that it is permitted to go out into the public domain. Where they disagree is in the case of a metal ornament. One Sage, Rav, holds that it is prohibited because there is concern lest she remove it, and show it to another, and come to carry it in the public domain. And one Sage, Shmuel, holds that it is permitted. Whose manner is to go out with a kelila ornament? Only an important woman; and an important woman does not remove ornaments and show them to others.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר בַּר חָנָה לְרַב יוֹסֵף: בְּפֵרוּשׁ אֲמַרְתְּ לַן מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרַב — ״כְּלִילָא שְׁרֵי״.
On the same topic, Rav Shmuel bar bar Ḥana said to Rav Yosef who, due to illness, forgot his learning: You explicitly said to us in the name of Rav: With regard to a kelila, it is permitted to go out into the public domain on Shabbat.
אֲמַרוּ לֵיהּ לְרַב: אֲתָא גַּבְרָא רַבָּה אֲרִיכָא לִנְהַרְדְּעָא וּמִטְּלַע, וְדָרֵשׁ ״כְּלִילָא שְׁרֵי״. אֲמַר: מַאן גַּבְרָא רַבָּה אֲרִיכָא [דְּאִיטְּלַע] — לֵוִי, שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ נָח נַפְשֵׁיהּ דְּרַבִּי אַפָּס וִיתִיב רַבִּי חֲנִינָא בְּרֵישָׁא, וְלָא הֲוָה לֵיהּ אִינִישׁ לְלֵוִי לְמֵיתַב גַּבֵּיהּ, וְקָאָתֵי לְהָכָא.
The Gemara relates that one day they said to Rav: A great, tall man came to Neharde’a and he was limping. And he taught: With a kelila, it is permitted to go out into the public domain on Shabbat. Rav said: Who is a great, tall man who limps? Levi. Conclude from this that Rabbi Afes passed away and Rabbi Ḥanina is sitting at the head of the yeshiva in Eretz Yisrael in his place. And, consequently, Levi had no one before whom to sit and study and he came here. As long as Rabbi Afes headed the yeshiva, Rabbi Ḥanina would sit outside the study hall. Entering the study hall would indicate that he accepted the authority of Rabbi Afes. Rabbi Ḥanina, who was a great man, refused to do so. In deference to Rabbi Ḥanina, Levi would sit with him as a colleague outside the study hall. When Levi arrived from Eretz Yisrael, it was clear that Rabbi Afes must have died. Levi, who considered himself Rabbi Ḥanina’s equal in terms of both scholarship and age, did not want to defer to Rabbi Ḥanina’s authority and decided to go to elsewhere, to Babylonia.
וְדִילְמָא נָח נַפְשֵׁיהּ דְּרַבִּי חֲנִינָא, וְרַבִּי אַפָּס כִּדְקָאֵי קָאֵי, וְלָא הֲוָה לֵיהּ אִינִישׁ לְלֵוִי לְמֵיתַב גַּבֵּיהּ, וְקָאָתֵי לְהָכָא? אִם אִיתָא דְּרַבִּי חֲנִינָא שְׁכֵיב — לֵוִי לְרַבִּי אַפָּס מִיכָּף הֲוָה כְּיִיף לֵיהּ. וְתוּ, דְּרַבִּי חֲנִינָא לָא סַגִּי דְּלָא מָלֵיךְ, דְּכִי הֲוָה קָא נִיחָא נַפְשֵׁיהּ דְּרַבִּי אָמַר: חֲנִינָא בְּרַבִּי חָמָא יֵשֵׁב בָּרֹאשׁ. וּכְתִיב בְּהוּ בְּצַדִּיקִים: ״וְתִגְזַר אֹמֶר וְיָקׇם לָךְ וְגוֹ׳״.
The Gemara asks: How did Rav arrive at that particular conclusion? And perhaps Rabbi Ḥanina died and Rabbi Afes remained standing in his position at the head of the yeshiva as he stood previously; and Levi had no one with whom to sit outside the study hall, and that is why he came here? The Gemara answers that that could not be the case for two reasons. First, if it were so, that Rabbi Ḥanina died, Levi would have been subject to the authority of Rabbi Afes. It was only in deference to Rabbi Ḥanina that Levi did not enter the study hall. And furthermore, it could not be that Rabbi Ḥanina died and did not reign as head of the yeshiva, as when Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi died, he said in his dying testament: Ḥanina, son of Rabbi Ḥama, shall sit at the head of the yeshiva. And of the righteous it is written: “You will decree a saying and it will be established for you, and the light will shine on your ways” (Job 22:28). Since the statement that Rabbi Ḥanina will serve at the head of the yeshiva crossed the lips of a righteous person, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, it is inconceivable that it would not have been realized.
דְּרַשׁ לֵוִי בִּנְהַרְדְּעָא ״כְּלִילָא שְׁרֵי״. נְפוּק עֶשְׂרִין וְאַרְבַּע כְּלִילֵי מִכּוּלַּהּ נְהַרְדְּעָא. דְּרַשׁ רַבָּה בַּר אֲבוּהּ בְּמָחוֹזָא ״כְּלִילָא שְׁרֵי״, וּנְפַקוּ תַּמְנֵי סְרֵי כְּלִילֵי מֵחֲדָא מְבוֹאָה.
The Gemara returns to the subject of kelila. When Levi taught in Neharde’a that with the kelila ornament, one is permitted to go out into the public domain on Shabbat, twenty-four women wearing the kelila ornament went out into the public domain from all of Neharde’a. When Rabba bar Avuh taught in Meḥoza that the kelila ornament is permitted, eighteen women wearing the kelila ornament went out from one alleyway. Meḥoza was a wealthy mercantile city, and many women there owned precious jewelry.
אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב שְׁמוּאֵל: קַמְרָא שְׁרֵי. אִיכָּא דְאָמְרִי דַּאֲרוּקְתָּא, וְאָמַר רַב סָפְרָא: מִידֵּי דְּהָוֵה אַטַּלִּית מוּזְהֶבֶת.
Rav Yehuda said that Rav Shmuel said: With a precious gilded belt [kamra], a woman is permitted to go out into the public domain on Shabbat. Some say that he was referring to a belt made of woven fabric and inlaid with gold. And Rav Safra said: It is permitted just as it is permitted in the case of a gilded cloak.
וְאִיכָּא דְאָמְרִי דַּאֲנִיסְכָּא, וְאָמַר רַב סָפְרָא: מִידֵּי דְּהָוֵה אַאַבְנֵט שֶׁל מְלָכִים.
And some say that it is referring to a belt made entirely of metal. And Rav Safra said: It is permitted just as it is permitted to go out into the public domain on Shabbat with the belt of kings made entirely of gold.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רָבִינָא לְרַב אָשֵׁי: קַמְרָא עִילָּוֵי הֶמְיָינָא מַאי? אֲמַר לֵיהּ תְּרֵי הֶמְיָינֵי קָאָמְרַתְּ.
Ravina said to Rav Ashi: With regard to going out with a gilded belt over another belt [hemyana], what is the halakha? He said to him: Two belts you said; it is certainly uncommon to wear two belts. Therefore, one of them is a burden.
אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי: הַאי רְסוֹקָא, אִי אִית לֵיהּ מַפְרְחָיָיתָא — שְׁרֵי, וְאִי לָא — אֲסִיר.
Rav Ashi said: This short cloak; if it has short straps with which to tie it, it is permitted to go out with it, and if not, it is prohibited.
וְלֹא בְּקַטְלָא. מַאי קַטְלָא — מְנַקְּטָא פָּארֵי. נְזָמִים — נִזְמֵי הָאָף.
We learned in the mishna: And a woman may not go out on Shabbat with a katla. The Gemara explains: What is a katla? A type of small bib hung from the neck. The nezamim mentioned in the mishna with which a woman may not go out on Shabbat refer to nose rings, not earrings.
וְלֹא בְּטַבַּעַת שֶׁאֵין עָלֶיהָ חוֹתָם. הָא יֵשׁ עָלֶיהָ חוֹתָם — חַיֶּיבֶת. אַלְמָא לָאו תַּכְשִׁיט הוּא.
We learned in the mishna: Nor with a ring that has no seal on it. By inference: If it does have a seal on it, she is liable to bring a sin-offering. She is only exempt from bringing a sacrifice when she goes out with a ring that does not have a seal on it, which is an ornament; however, a ring with a seal on it, typically used by men for sealing documents, is considered a burden for a woman on Shabbat. Apparently, that ring is not an ornament.
וּרְמִינְהוּ: תַּכְשִׁיטֵי נָשִׁים טְמֵאִים. וְאֵלּוּ הֵן תַּכְשִׁיטֵי נָשִׁים: קַטְלָאוֹת, נְזָמִים וְטַבָּעוֹת, וְטַבַּעַת בֵּין שֶׁיֵּשׁ עָלֶיהָ חוֹתָם בֵּין שֶׁאֵין עָלֶיהָ חוֹתָם, וְנִזְמֵי הָאָף.
The Gemara raises a contradiction from a mishna in tractate Kelim: Women’s ornaments can become ritually impure. And these are women’s ornaments: Bibs; earrings; and rings; and a ring whether it has a seal on it or whether it does not have a seal on it; and nose rings. Apparently, even a ring that has a seal on it is considered a woman’s ornament.
וְאָמַר רַבִּי זֵירָא, לָא קַשְׁיָא: הָא רַבִּי נְחֶמְיָה, הָא רַבָּנַן.
And Rabbi Zeira said: This is not difficult. Rather, this ruling in our mishna, which distinguishes between a ring with a seal and a ring without a seal, is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Neḥemya; that ruling in the mishna in tractate Kelim, which does not distinguish between rings, is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis.
דְּתַנְיָא: הִיא שֶׁל מַתֶּכֶת וְחוֹתָמָהּ שֶׁל אַלְמוֹג — טְמֵאָה, הִיא שֶׁל אַלְמוֹג וְחוֹתָמָהּ שֶׁל מַתֶּכֶת — טְהוֹרָה, וְרַבִּי נְחֶמְיָה מְטַמֵּא, שֶׁהָיָה רַבִּי נְחֶמְיָה אוֹמֵר: בְּטַבַּעַת הַלֵּךְ אַחַר חוֹתָמָהּ. בְּעוֹל הַלֵּךְ אַחַר סִמְלוֹנָיו.
As it was taught in a baraita: If the ring were made of metal and its seal was made of coral, it can become ritually impure because the primary component of the ring is metal, a material that can become ritually impure. If the ring were made of coral and its seal of metal, it is ritually pure and cannot become ritually impure. Rabbi Neḥemya deems it ritually impure, as Rabbi Neḥemya would say: With regard to a ring, follow its seal; if the seal were made of material that can become ritually impure, the entire ring can become ritually impure, and if it were made of material that cannot become ritually impure, the entire ring remains pure. The same is true with regard to a yoke of an animal: Follow its rods. Rods are placed in the yoke to fasten it to the animal; the component material of the rods determines whether or not the entire yoke can become ritually impure.
Follow
