Shabbat 62aשבת ס״ב א
The William Davidson Talmudתלמוד מהדורת ויליאם דוידסון
Save "Shabbat 62a"
Toggle Reader Menu Display Settings
62aס״ב א

והתניא רבי אושעיא אומר ובלבד שלא יאחזנו בידו ויעבירנו ארבע אמות ברשות הרבים

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

[אלא] הכא במאי עסקינן במחופה עור

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

והרי תפילין דמחופה עור ותניא הנכנס לבית הכסא חולץ תפילין ברחוק ארבע אמות ונכנס

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

התם משום שין דאמר אביי שין של תפילין הלכה למשה מסיני ואמר אביי דלת של תפילין הלכה למשה מסיני ואמר אביי יוד של תפילין הלכה למשה מסיני:

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

ולא בשריון ולא בקסדא ולא במגפיים:

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

שריון זרדא קסדא אמר רב סנוארתא מגפיים אמר רב פזמקי:

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

מתני׳ לא תצא אשה במחט הנקובה ולא בטבעת שיש עליה חותם ולא בכוליאר ולא בכובלת ולא בצלוחית של פלייטון

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

ואם יצתה חייבת חטאת דברי רבי מאיר וחכמים פוטרין בכובלת ובצלוחית של פלייטון:

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

גמ׳ אמר עולא וחילופיהן באיש אלמא קסבר עולא כל מידי דחזי לאיש לא חזי לאשה ומידי דחזי לאשה לא חזי לאיש

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

מתיב רב יוסף הרועים יוצאין בשקין ולא הרועים בלבד אמרו אלא כל אדם אלא שדרכן של הרועים לצאת בשקין

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

[אלא] אמר רב יוסף קסבר עולא נשים עם בפני עצמן הן

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

איתיביה אביי המוצא תפילין מכניסן זוג זוג אחד האיש ואחד האשה ואי אמרת נשים עם בפני עצמן הן והא מצות עשה שהזמן גרמא הוא וכל מצות עשה שהזמן גרמא נשים פטורות

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

התם קסבר רבי מאיר לילה זמן תפילין הוא ושבת זמן תפילין הוא הוה ליה מצות עשה שלא הזמן גרמא וכל מצות עשה שלא הזמן גרמא נשים חייבות

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

והא הוצאה כלאחר יד היא

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

אמר רבי ירמיה באשה גזברית עסקינן אמר רבה (בר בר חנה אמר רבי יוחנן) תרצת אשה איש מאי איכא למימר

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

אלא אמר רבא פעמים שאדם נותן לאשתו טבעת שיש עליה חותם להוליכה לקופסא ומניחתה בידה עד שמגעת לקופסא ופעמים שהאשה נותנת לבעלה טבעת שאין עליה חותם להוליכה אצל אומן לתקן ומניחה בידו עד שמגיע אצל אומן:

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

ולא בכוליאר ולא בכובלת: מאי כוליאר אמר רב מכבנתא כובלת אמר רב חומרתא דפילון וכן אמר רב אסי חומרתא דפילון

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

תנו רבנן לא תצא בכובלת ואם יצתה חייבת חטאת דברי רבי מאיר וחכמים אומרים לא תצא ואם יצתה פטורה רבי אליעזר אומר יוצאה אשה בכובלת לכתחלה

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

במאי קמיפלגי רבי מאיר סבר משאוי הוא ורבנן סברי תכשיט הוא ודילמא שלפא ומחויא ואתיא לאיתוייה ורבי אליעזר סבר מאן דרכה למירמיה אשה שריחה רע אשה שריחה רע לא שלפא ומחויא ולא אתיא לאתוייה ארבע אמות ברשות הרבים

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

והתניא רבי אליעזר פוטר בכובלת ובצלוחית של פלייטון

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

לא קשיא הא כי קאי אדרבי מאיר הא כי קאי אדרבנן כי קאי אדרבי מאיר דאמר חייב חטאת אמר ליה פטור כי קאי אדרבנן דאמרי פטור אבל אסור אמר איהו מותר לכתחלה

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