וּמַאי רַבִּי מֵאִיר? דְּתַנְיָא: לֹא תֵּצֵא אִשָּׁה בְּמַפְתֵּחַ שֶׁבְּיָדָהּ, וְאִם יָצָאת — חַיֶּיבֶת חַטָּאת, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר. רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר פּוֹטֵר בְּכוֹבֶלֶת וּבִצְלוֹחִית שֶׁל פִּלְיָיטוֹן. And to what statement of Rabbi Meir is the Gemara referring? As it was taught in a baraita: A woman may not go out on Shabbat with a key that is in her hand, and if she went out she is liable to bring a sin-offering; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Eliezer exempts a woman who goes out with a bundle of fragrant herbs and with a flask of balsam oil [palyaton].
כּוֹבֶלֶת — מַאן דְּכַר שְׁמַהּ? The Gemara finds the statement of Rabbi Eliezer difficult: A bundle of fragrant herbs; who mentioned anything about that? Rabbi Meir did not mention a bundle of herbs; why did Rabbi Eliezer mention it in his response?
חַסּוֹרֵי מִחַסְּרָא וְהָכִי קָתָנֵי: וְכֵן בְּכוֹבֶלֶת וְכֵן בִּצְלוֹחִית שֶׁל פִּלְיָיטוֹן לֹא תֵּצֵא, וְאִם יָצְאָה — חַיֶּיבֶת חַטָּאת, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר. רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר פּוֹטֵר בְּכוֹבֶלֶת וּבִצְלוֹחִית שֶׁל פִּלְיָיטוֹן. בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים — כְּשֶׁיֵּשׁ בָּהֶם בּוֹשֶׂם, אֲבָל אֵין בָּהֶם בּוֹשֶׂם — חַיֶּיבֶת. The Gemara answers that the baraita is incomplete and it teaches the following: And likewise, with a bundle of fragrant herbs, and likewise with a flask of balsam oil she may not go out, and if she went out she is liable to bring a sin-offering; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Eliezer exempts in the cases of a bundle of fragrant herbs and a flask of balsam oil. In what case is this statement said? In a case where the vessels have perfume in them; however, in a case where they do not have perfume in them, she is liable for carrying the flask out into the public domain on Shabbat.
אָמַר רַב אַדָּא בַּר אַהֲבָה: זֹאת אוֹמֶרֶת הַמּוֹצִיא אוֹכָלִין פָּחוֹת מִכְּשִׁיעוּר בִּכְלִי — חַיָּיב. דְּהָא אֵין בָּהּ בּוֹשֶׂם כְּפָחוֹת מִכְּשִׁיעוּר בִּכְלִי דָּמֵי, וְקָתָנֵי חַיֶּיבֶת. Rav Adda bar Ahava said: That is to say that one who carries out a measure of food that is less than the measure that determines liability on Shabbat, but he does so in a vessel, he is liable. Although he is not liable for carrying the food out into the public domain, he is liable for carrying out the vessel. In that case, the vessel is not subordinate to the food, and therefore it is significant. Since the case of the flask in which there is no perfume is comparable to the case in which there is less than the required measurement of food in a vessel, and it was taught in the case of the flask that she is liable even though the fragrance of the perfume remains in the vessel, it stands to reason that one who carries a vessel containing less than a measure of food is also liable.
רַב אָשֵׁי אָמַר: בְּעָלְמָא אֵימָא לָךְ פָּטוּר, וְשָׁאנֵי הָכָא דְּלֵיתֵיהּ לְמַמָּשָׁא כְּלָל. Rav Ashi said: That is no proof because, in general, I would say to you that he is exempt in a case where there is less than the measure that determines liability for food. However, it is different here, in the case of the empty flask of perfume as, in that case, there is no substance at all. Because the vessel is completely empty, he is liable for carrying the flask.
״וְרֵאשִׁית שְׁמָנִים יִמְשָׁחוּ״, אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: זֶה פִּלְיָיטוֹן. Related to the mention of perfume, the Gemara cites several statements. It is stated: “That drink wine in mizrekei, and anoint themselves with the chief ointments; but they are not grieved for the hurt of Joseph” (Amos 6:6). Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: “The chief ointments” is balsam oil.
מֵתִיב רַב יוֹסֵף: אַף עַל פִּלְיָיטוֹן גְּזַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה בֶּן בָּבָא, וְלֹא הוֹדוּ לוֹ. וְאִי אָמְרַתְּ, מִשּׁוּם תַּעֲנוּג, אַמַּאי לֹא הוֹדוּ לוֹ? Rav Yosef raised an objection from the Tosefta: Rabbi Yehuda ben Bava issued a decree on balsam oil as well, prohibiting its use due to mourning over the destruction of the Temple, and the Sages did not agree with him. And if you say that balsam oil is the chief ointment cited in the verse, and the decree was issued due to the pleasure it provides, why didn’t the Sages agree with his decree? Doesn’t the verse criticize those who do not feel the pain of the people?
אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: וּלְטַעְמָיךְ, הָא דִּכְתִיב: ״הַשֹּׁתִים בְּמִזְרְקֵי יַיִן״ — רַבִּי אַמֵּי וְרַבִּי אַסִּי, חַד אָמַר קְנִישְׁקְנִין, וְחַד אָמַר שֶׁמְּזָרְקִין כּוֹסוֹתֵיהֶן זֶה לָזֶה. הָכִי נָמֵי דַּאֲסִיר? וְהָא רַבָּה בַּר רַב הוּנָא אִיקְּלַע לְבֵי רֵישׁ גָּלוּתָא וְאִישְׁתִּי בִּקְנִישְׁקְנִין, וְלָא אֲמַר לֵיהּ וְלָא מִידֵּי! Abaye said to him: And according to your reasoning, that which is written in the same verse: “That drink wine in mizrekei”; Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Asi disagree over the meaning of the term mizrekei. One said: They are multi-spouted vessels [kenishkanin], wine vessels with spouts from which several people can drink at one time, and one said that they throw [mezarkin] their cups to one another in joy and jest. Is that also prohibited? Didn’t Rabba bar Rav Huna visit the house of the Exilarch and see the Exilarch drink from a multi-spouted vessel, and Rabba bar Rav Huna did not say anything to him?
אֶלָּא: כׇּל מִידֵּי דְּאִית בֵּיהּ תַּעֲנוּג וְאִית בֵּיהּ שִׂמְחָה — גְּזַרוּ רַבָּנַן, אֲבָל מִידֵּי דְּאִית בֵּיהּ תַּעֲנוּג וְלֵית בֵּיהּ שִׂמְחָה — לָא גְזַרוּ רַבָּנַן. Rather, the principle is as follows: With regard to any matter in which there is an element of pleasure and in which there is an element of joy, the Sages issued a decree prohibiting it due to mourning over the destruction of the Temple. However, with regard to a matter in which there is an element of pleasure and in which there is no element of joy, the Sages did not issue a decree. Since there is no element of joy in balsam oil, even though it is precious and pleasurable, they did not issue a decree prohibiting it.
״הַשֹּׁכְבִים עַל מִטּוֹת שֵׁן וּסְרֻחִים עַל עַרְשׂוֹתָם״. אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי חֲנִינָא: מְלַמֵּד שֶׁהָיוּ מַשְׁתִּינִין מַיִם בִּפְנֵי מִטּוֹתֵיהֶן עֲרוּמִּים. The Gemara interprets additional verses related to the critique of the leadership of Samaria. It is stated: “That lie upon beds of ivory and stretch [seruḥim] upon their couches and eat the lambs out of the flock and the calves out of the midst of the stall” (Amos 6:4). Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, said: This term, seruḥim, interpreted homiletically, teaches that their sin was that they would urinate before their beds while naked.
מְגַדֵּף בַּהּ רַבִּי אֲבָהוּ: אִי הָכִי, הַיְינוּ דִּכְתִיב: ״לָכֵן עַתָּה יִגְלוּ בְּרֹאשׁ גֹּלִים״ — מִשּׁוּם דְּמַשְׁתִּינִין מַיִם בִּפְנֵי מִטּוֹתֵיהֶם עֲרוּמִּים יִגְלוּ בְּרֹאשׁ גּוֹלִים?! Rabbi Abbahu ridiculed that interpretation: If so, that this is the meaning of the term seruḥim, is this the meaning of that which is written: “Therefore now they shall go into exile at the head of the exiles and the revelry of those seruḥim shall pass away” (Amos 6:7), because they urinate before their beds while naked they will be exiled at the head of exiles? Although doing so is revolting, a punishment so severe is certainly excessive.
אֶלָּא אָמַר רַבִּי אֲבָהוּ: אֵלּוּ בְּנֵי אָדָם שֶׁהָיוּ אוֹכְלִים וְשׁוֹתִים זֶה עִם זֶה, וְדוֹבְקִין מִטּוֹתֵיהֶן זוֹ בָּזוֹ, וּמַחֲלִיפִין נְשׁוֹתֵיהֶן זֶה עִם זֶה, וּמַסְרִיחִין עַרְסוֹתָם בְּשִׁכְבַת זֶרַע שֶׁאֵינוֹ שֶׁלָּהֶן. Rather, Rabbi Abbahu said: This verse is referring to a grave sin. These are people who would eat and drink with each other, and join their beds to each other, and swap wives with each other, and defile their beds with semen that was not theirs. That is the meaning of seruḥim upon their couches. For those severe transgressions they deserved to be exiled at the head of exiles.
אָמַר רַבִּי אֲבָהוּ, וְאָמְרִי לַהּ בְּמַתְנִיתָא תָּנָא: שְׁלֹשָׁה דְּבָרִים מְבִיאִין אֶת הָאָדָם לִידֵי עֲנִיּוּת, וְאֵלּוּ הֵן: הַמַּשְׁתִּין מַיִם בִּפְנֵי מִטָּתוֹ עָרוֹם, וּמְזַלְזֵל בִּנְטִילַת יָדַיִם, וְשֶׁאִשְׁתּוֹ מְקַלַּלְתּוֹ בְּפָנָיו. On a related note, Rabbi Abbahu said, and some say it was taught in a baraita: Three matters bring a person to a state of poverty as a divine punishment from Heaven: One who urinates before his bed while naked, and one who demeans the ritual washing of the hands, and one whose wife curses him in his presence.
הַמַּשְׁתִּין מַיִם בִּפְנֵי מִטָּתוֹ עָרוֹם, אָמַר רָבָא: לָא אֲמַרַן אֶלָּא דְּמַהְדַּר אַפֵּיהּ לְפוּרְיֵיהּ, אֲבָל לְבָרַאי — לֵית לַן בַּהּ. The Gemara explains: With regard to one who urinates before his bed while naked, Rava said: We only said this prohibition in a case where he turns his face toward his bed and urinates toward it; however, if he turns his face and urinates toward the outer portion of the room, we have no problem with it.
וּמַהְדַּר אַפֵּיהּ לְפוּרְיֵיהּ, נָמֵי לָא אֲמַרַן אֶלָּא לְאַרְעָא, אֲבָל בְּמָנָא — לֵית לַן בַּהּ. And where one turns his face toward his bed, too, we only said this prohibition in a case where he urinates on the ground; however, if he urinates into a vessel, we have no problem with it since that is not considered disgusting.
וּמְזַלְזֵל בִּנְטִילַת יָדַיִם, אָמַר רָבָא: לָא אֲמַרַן אֶלָּא דְּלָא מְשָׁא יְדֵיהּ כְּלָל, אֲבָל מְשָׁא וְלָא מְשָׁא — לֵית לַן בַּהּ. With regard to one who demeans the ritual washing of the hands, Rava said: We only said this statement in a case where he does not wash his hands at all; however, if he washes his hands and does not wash them with a significant amount of water, we have no problem with it.
וְלָאו מִלְּתָא הִיא, דְּאָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: אֲנָא מְשַׁאי מְלֵא חָפְנַי מַיָּא וִיהַבוּ לִי מְלֵא חָפְנַי טֵיבוּתָא. The Gemara notes: And that is not so, as Rav Ḥisda said: I wash my hands with handfuls of water and they gave me in reward handfuls of prosperity. Apparently, in order to garner the benefits of ritual washing of his hands, one should use a significant amount of water.
וְשֶׁאִשְׁתּוֹ מְקַלַּלְתּוֹ בְּפָנָיו, אָמַר רָבָא: עַל עִסְקֵי תַּכְשִׁיטֶיהָ. וְהָנֵי מִילֵּי הוּא דְּאִית לֵיהּ וְלָא עָבֵיד. With regard to one whose wife curses him in his presence, Rava said: This is referring to a case where she curses him over matters relating to her ornaments, i.e., she complains that he does not provide her with jewelry. The Gemara comments: And that applies only when he has the resources to buy her jewelry but does not do so; however, if he does not have sufficient resources he need not be concerned.
דָּרֵשׁ רָבָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב עִילָּאֵי, מַאי דִכְתִיב: ״וַיֹּאמֶר ה׳ יַעַן כִּי גָבְהוּ בְּנוֹת צִיּוֹן״ — שֶׁהָיוּ מְהַלְּכוֹת בְּקוֹמָה זְקוּפָה. ״וַתֵּלַכְנָה נְטוּיוֹת גָּרוֹן״ — שֶׁהָיוּ מְהַלְּכוֹת עָקֵב בְּצַד גּוּדָל. ״וּמְשַׂקְּרוֹת עֵינַיִם״ — דַּהֲוָה מָלְיָאן כּוּחְלָא לְעֵינַיְיהוּ וּמְרַמְּזָן. ״הָלוֹךְ וְטָפוֹף״ — שֶׁהָיוּ מְהַלְּכוֹת אֲרוּכָּה בְּצַד קְצָרָה. ״וּבְרַגְלֵיהֶן תְּעַכַּסְנָה״ — אָמַר רַב יִצְחָק דְּבֵי רַבִּי אַמֵּי: מְלַמֵּד שֶׁמַּטִּילוֹת מוֹר וַאֲפַרְסְמוֹן בְּמִנְעֲלֵיהֶן וּמְהַלְּכוֹת בְּשׁוּקֵי יְרוּשָׁלַיִם, וְכֵיוָן שֶׁמַּגִּיעוֹת אֵצֶל בַּחוּרֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל בּוֹעֲטוֹת בַּקַּרְקַע וּמַתִּיזוֹת עֲלֵיהֶם וּמַכְנִיסוֹת בָּהֶן יֵצֶר הָרָע כְּאֶרֶס בְּכָעוּס. Since the Gemara spoke of sins in the First Temple era, it continues to explain other verses with similar content. Rava, son of Rav Ilai, interpreted the following verse homiletically. What is the meaning of that which is written: “The Lord says because the daughters of Zion are haughty and walk with outstretched necks and wanton eyes, walking and mincing as they go and making a tinkling with their feet” (Isaiah 3:16)?
“Because the daughters of Zion are haughty,” indicates that they would walk with upright stature and carry themselves in an immodest way.
“And walk with outstretched necks,” indicates that they would walk in small steps, heel to toe, so onlookers would notice them.
“Wanton eyes,” indicates that they would fill their eyes with blue eye shadow and beckon.
“Walking and mincing [tafof] as they go,” indicates that the wealthy women would walk a tall woman alongside a short one so that the tall woman would stand out. This is derived from the interchangeability of the letters tet and tzadi; tzafo, meaning, in this case, to be seen.
“Making a tinkling [te’akasna] with their feet,” Rabbi Yitzḥak from the school of Rabbi Ami said: This teaches that they would place myrrh and balsam in their shoes and would walk in the marketplaces of Jerusalem. And once they approached a place where the young men of Israel were congregated, they would stamp their feet on the ground and splash the perfume toward them and instill the evil inclination into them like venom of a viper [ke’eres bakhos].
מַאי פּוּרְעֲנוּתַיְהִי? — כִּדְדָרֵישׁ רַבָּה בַּר עוּלָּא: ״וְהָיָה תַחַת בֹּשֶׂם מַק יִהְיֶה״ — מָקוֹם שֶׁהָיוּ מִתְבַּשְּׂמוֹת בּוֹ נַעֲשָׂה נְמָקִים נְמָקִים. ״וְתַחַת חֲגוֹרָה נִקְפָּה״ — מָקוֹם שֶׁהָיוּ חֲגוּרוֹת בְּצִלְצוֹל נַעֲשָׂה נְקָפִים נְקָפִים. ״וְתַחַת מַעֲשֶׂה מִקְשֶׁה קׇרְחָה״ — מָקוֹם שֶׁהָיוּ מִתְקַשְּׁטוֹת בּוֹ נַעֲשָׂה קְרָחִים קְרָחִים. ״וְתַחַת פְּתִיגִיל מַחֲגֹרֶת שָׂק״ — פְּתָחִים הַמְּבִיאִין לִידֵי גִּילָה, יִהְיוּ לְמַחֲגֹרֶת שָׂק. ״כִּי תַחַת יֹפִי״ — אָמַר רָבָא, הַיְינוּ דְּאָמְרִי אִינָשֵׁי: חַלּוֹפֵי שׁוּפְרָא — כֵּיבָא. What was their punishment for these sins? As Rabba bar Ulla taught: “And it shall come to pass that instead of a sweet smell, there shall be a stench; and instead of a belt, a rope; and instead of well-set hair, baldness; and instead of a fine dress, a girding of sackcloth; instead of beauty, a brand” (Isaiah 3:24).
He explains: “And it shall come to pass that instead of a sweet smell there shall be a stench,” indicates that the place that they would perfume became decaying sores.
“And instead of a sash, a rope [nikpe],” indicates that the place where they were girded with a sash became covered with many bruises [nekafim].
“And instead of well-set hair, baldness,” indicates that the place where they would style their hair became bald spots.
“And instead of a fine dress [petigil], a girding of sackcloth,” indicates that the orifices [petaḥim] that lead to pleasure [gil] will become a place for a girding of sackcloth.
“Instead of beauty, a brand [ki],” Rava said: That is the popular expression that people say: Instead of beauty, a sore [kiva].
״וְסִפַּח ה׳ קׇדְקֹד בְּנוֹת צִיּוֹן״ — אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי חֲנִינָא: מְלַמֵּד שֶׁפָּרְחָה בָּהֶן צָרַעַת. כְּתִיב הָכָא ״וְשִׂפַּח״, וּכְתִיב הָתָם: ״לַשְׂאֵת וְלַסַּפַּחַת״. With regard to a different verse: “The Lord will smite with a scab the crown of the head of the daughters of Zion and the Lord will lay bare their secret parts” (Isaiah 3:17). And the Lord will smite with a scab the crown of the heads of the daughters of Zion; Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, said: This teaches that there was an outbreak of leprosy among them. It is written here, scab [sippaḥ], and it is written there, among the types of leprosy: “For a sore, and for a scab [sappaḥat], and for a bright spot” (Leviticus 14:56).
״וַה׳ פׇּתְהֵן יְעָרֶה״. רַב וּשְׁמוּאֵל, חַד אָמַר: שֶׁנִּשְׁפְּכוּ כְּקִיתוֹן, וְחַד אָמַר: שֶׁנַּעֲשׂוּ פִּתְחֵיהֶן כְּיַעַר. With regard to the verse: And the Lord will lay bare their secret parts [pot’hen ye’areh], Rav and Shmuel disagree. One says: It means that they, i.e., their innards, were poured out [ye’areh] like a jug. And one says: That their orifices [pitḥeihen] were covered with hair as thick as a forest [ya’ar].
אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב: אַנְשֵׁי יְרוּשָׁלַיִם אַנְשֵׁי שַׁחַץ הָיוּ. אָדָם אוֹמֵר לַחֲבֵרוֹ: בַּמֶּה סָעַדְתָּ הַיּוֹם? בְּפַת עֲמִילָה, אוֹ בְּפַת שֶׁאֵינָהּ עֲמִילָה? בְּיַיִן גּוֹרְדָּלִי, אוֹ On the topic of the sins of Jerusalem and the abundance that existed before its destruction, Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: The people of Jerusalem were people of arrogance. They would couch their crude behavior in euphemisms. A person would say to another: On what did you dine today? Well-kneaded bread or bread that is not well-kneaded? On white wine or