מַתְנִי׳ בַּמֶּה אִשָּׁה יוֹצְאָה, וּבַמָּה אֵינָהּ יוֹצְאָה?
The mishna lists items that a woman may or may not carry into, or wear in the public domain on Shabbat. This depends on whether the particular object is considered an ornament, which she may wear, or merely a burden for the woman, which she may not. Even if it is considered an ornament, there is still concern that she might remove it and carry it in her hand in the public domain, which is prohibited by Torah law.
MISHNA: With what items may a woman go out into the public domain on Shabbat and with what items may she not go out?
לֹא תֵּצֵא אִשָּׁה לֹא בְּחוּטֵי צֶמֶר וְלֹא בְּחוּטֵי פִּשְׁתָּן וְלֹא בִּרְצוּעוֹת שֶׁבְּרֹאשָׁהּ. וְלֹא תִּטְבּוֹל בָּהֶן, עַד שֶׁתְּרַפֵּם.
A woman may neither go out with strings of wool, nor with strings of flax, nor with strips of any other materials that a woman braids in the hair of her head. And a woman may not immerse in a ritual bath with them in her hair until she loosens them. When the strings or strips are tight, the water cannot reach her hair unobstructed, invalidating her immersion.
וְלֹא בְּ״טוֹטֶפֶת״ וְלֹא בְּסַרְבִּיטִין בִּזְמַן שֶׁאֵינָן תְּפוּרִים. וְלֹא בְּכָבוּל לִרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים.
And, likewise, a woman may neither go out with the ornament called totefet, nor with sarvitin that are not sewn into her head covering, nor with a kavul into the public domain.
וְלֹא בְּעִיר שֶׁל זָהָב וְלֹא בְּקַטְלָא וְלֹא בִּנְזָמִים וְלֹא בְּטַבַּעַת שֶׁאֵין עָלֶיהָ חוֹתָם וְלֹא בְּמַחַט שֶׁאֵינָהּ נְקוּבָה.
And, likewise, a woman may neither go out with a city of gold ornament, nor with a katla ornament, nor with nose rings, nor with a ring that has no seal on it, nor with a needle that is not perforated, which are merely for decorative purposes.
וְאִם יָצָאת אֵינָהּ חַיֶּיבֶת חַטָּאת.
And if she unwittingly went out wearing any of these, she is not liable to bring a sin-offering. According to Torah law, a woman is permitted to go out into the public domain wearing ornaments. However, the Sages decreed that a woman may not go out wearing certain ornaments, lest she remove them to show them to another and inadvertently carry them four cubits in the public domain.
גְּמָ׳ טְבִילָה מַאן דְּכַר שְׁמַהּ?
GEMARA: The Gemara asks: Immersion, who mentioned anything about that? The mishna is dealing with the halakhot of Shabbat, so why did it mention the halakhot of immersion?
אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן בַּר יִצְחָק אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר אֲבוּהּ — מַה טַּעַם קָאָמַר: מַה טַּעַם לֹא תֵּצֵא אִשָּׁה לֹא בְּחוּטֵי צֶמֶר וְלֹא בְּחוּטֵי פִּשְׁתָּן — מִפְּנֵי שֶׁאָמְרוּ חֲכָמִים בַּחוֹל לָא תִּטְבּוֹל בָּהֶן עַד שֶׁתְּרַפֵּם. וְכֵיוָן דִּבְחוֹל לָא תִּטְבּוֹל בָּהֶן עַד שֶׁתְּרַפֵּם, בְּשַׁבָּת לֹא תֵּצֵא, דִּילְמָא מִיתְרְמֵי לַהּ טְבִילָה שֶׁל מִצְוָה וְשָׁרְיָא לְהוּ, וְאָתֵי לְאֵתוֹיִינְהוּ אַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת בִּרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים.
Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said that Rabba bar Avuh said: When the mishna states the halakha, it employs the style known as: What is the reason. The mention of immersion is an explanation, not a superfluous addition. The mishna should be understood as follows: What is the reason that a woman may neither go out with strings of wool nor with strings of flax? It is because the Sages said that on weekdays she may not immerse with them until she loosens them. And since on weekdays she may not immerse with them until she loosens them, on Shabbat she may not go out with them, lest a situation requiring immersion for the purpose of a mitzva come about, and she untie them, and come to carry them four cubits in the public domain.
בְּעָא מִינֵּיהּ רַב כָּהֲנָא מֵרַב: תִּיכֵי חֲלִילָתָא מַאי? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אָרִיג קָאָמְרַתְּ? כׇּל שֶׁהוּא אָרִיג לֹא גָּזְרוּ. אִיתְּמַר נָמֵי, אָמַר רַב הוּנָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב יְהוֹשֻׁעַ: כׇּל שֶׁהוּא אָרִיג לֹא גָּזְרוּ.
Rav Kahana raised a dilemma before Rav: With regard to strings made into hollow chains, what is the halakha? Is it permissible for women to go out into the public domain with them on Shabbat or not? It depends on whether they are considered an interposition to immersion. Rav said to him: Woven, you say? With regard to anything woven, the Sages did not issue a decree. Because water reaches the hair unobstructed, there is no need to loosen the hollow chain and there is no concern lest she carry it in the public domain. It was also stated that Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, said: With regard to anything woven, the Sages did not issue a decree.
וְאִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי, אָמַר רַב הוּנָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב יְהוֹשֻׁעַ: חֲזֵינָא לְאַחְווֹתִי דְּלָא קָפְדָן עֲלַיְיהוּ.
And some say that Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, said: I saw that my sisters are not particular about removing them, and they bathe even with woven chains tied in their hair. Apparently, water reaches the hair. Therefore, the chain is not an interposition with regard to immersion.
מַאי אִיכָּא בֵּין הַךְ לִישָּׁנָא וּבֵין הַךְ לִישָּׁנָא?
The Gemara asks: What practical difference is there between this version and that version of the resolution of the dilemma?
אִיכָּא בֵּינַיְיהוּ דִּטְנִיפָן. לְהַךְ לִישָּׁנָא דְּאָמַר כׇּל שֶׁהוּא אָרִיג לֹא גָּזְרוּ — הָנֵי נָמֵי אָרִיג נִינְהוּ, וּלְהַךְ לִישָּׁנָא דְּאָמְרַתְּ מִשּׁוּם קְפִידָא — כֵּיוָן דִּטְנִיפָא מִקְפָּד קָפְדָא עֲלַיְיהוּ.
The Gemara explains: There is a practical difference between them in a case where the chains are dirty. According to this version, in which you said: With regard to anything woven, the Sages did not issue a decree, these too are woven. And according to that version, in which you said that it is due to the fact that his sisters were not particular; in this case, since they are dirty, she is particular about them and will certainly remove them when she washes. Therefore, she is required to do so when immersing in a ritual bath as well.
תְּנַן הָתָם: וְאֵלּוּ חוֹצְצִין בָּאָדָם: חוּטֵי צֶמֶר וְחוּטֵי פִּשְׁתָּן וְהָרְצוּעוֹת שֶׁבְּרָאשֵׁי הַבָּנוֹת. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: שֶׁל צֶמֶר וְשֶׁל שֵׂעָר אֵין חוֹצְצִין מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהַמַּיִם בָּאִין בָּהֶן. אָמַר רַב הוּנָא: וְכוּלָּן, בְּרָאשֵׁי הַבָּנוֹת שָׁנִינוּ.
We learned in a mishna in tractate Mikvaot: And these are the objects that interpose for a person: Strings of wool, and strings of flax, and the straps that are on the girls’ heads. Rabbi Yehuda says: Strings of wool and strands of hair do not interpose because the water reaches the hair through them. Rav Huna said: And we learned all these, strings of wool and flax, in a case where they are used to tie the hair on the girls’ heads.
מַתְקִיף לַהּ רַב יוֹסֵף: לְמַעוֹטֵי מַאי? אִילֵּימָא לְמַעוֹטֵי דְּצַוָּאר, וּדְמַאי: אִילֵּימָא לְמַעוֹטֵי דְּצֶמֶר — הַשְׁתָּא רַךְ עַל גַּבֵּי קָשֶׁה חוֹצֵץ, רַךְ עַל גַּבֵּי רַךְ מִיבַּעְיָא?
Rav Yosef strongly objects to this halakha of Rav Huna: To exclude what other places in the body did Rav Huna say this? If you say that it comes to exclude strings tied to the neck, and then, strings made of what material does it exclude? If you say that it comes to exclude strings of wool, now, the mishna stated that soft strings of wool on top of hair, which is relatively hard, interpose and invalidates the immersion. With regard to soft strings on top of the soft flesh of the neck, is it necessary to say that they interpose?
וְאֶלָּא לְמַעוֹטֵי דְּחוּטֵי פִשְׁתָּן. הַשְׁתָּא קָשֶׁה עַל גַּבֵּי קָשֶׁה חוֹצֵץ, קָשֶׁה עַל גַּבֵּי רַךְ מִיבַּעְיָא?
Rather, say that Rav Huna’s statement came to exclude strings of flax. A similar difficulty arises: Now the mishna stated that hard strings of wool on top of hair, which is hard, interposes and invalidates the immersion. If so, with regard to hard strings on top of the soft flesh of the neck, is it necessary to say that they interpose?
אֶלָּא אָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף, הַיְינוּ טַעְמָא דְּרַב הוּנָא: לְפִי שֶׁאֵין אִשָּׁה חוֹנֶקֶת אֶת עַצְמָהּ.
Rather, Rav Yosef said, this is the reason that Rav Huna restricts the concern for interposition to strings tied in her hair and not around her neck: Because a woman does not strangle herself when adorning herself with a string or straps around her neck. Therefore, she never tightens the strings or straps to the extent that water cannot reach the skin.
אֵיתִיבֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: הַבָּנוֹת יוֹצְאוֹת בְּחוּטִין שֶׁבְּאׇזְנֵיהֶן, אֲבָל לֹא בַּחֲבָקִין שֶׁבְּצַוְּארֵיהֶן. וְאִי אָמְרַתְּ אֵין אִשָּׁה חוֹנֶקֶת עַצְמָהּ, חֲבָקִין שֶׁבְּצַוְּארֵיהֶן אַמַּאי לָא?
Abaye raised an objection to the explanation of Rav Yosef from a baraita: The girls may go out into the public domain on Shabbat with strings in their ears. Young girls would have their ears pierced, but earrings were not placed in their ears until they were older. Instead, they inserted strings so that the holes would not close. However, they may not go out with straps around their necks. And if you say that the principle: A woman does not strangle herself, is halakhically valid, why may they not go out into the public domain with straps around their necks? They are not tied tight and do not constitute an interposition that invalidates immersion.