Shabbat 57b (נז:) — the Talmud in English

Ravina said: !(pamud.bmp "

Exact location on the page")

Here,

in the beraita,

we are dealing with a katla,

straps of an important garment placed opposite her heart so that food will not fall onto her clothing. The straps were tied around her neck, and it is customary

for a woman to strangle herself by tying these straps,

because

she prefers to appear as one who has flesh, and the strap does not harm her because it is smooth and wide.

We learned in a Mishna in tractate Immersion Pools:

Rabbi Yehuda says

threads

of wool and of hair do not constitute an interposition

during a person’s immersion

because the water enters them.

Rav Yosef said that Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: The halakha follows Rabbi Yehuda with regard to hair threads,

made of hair, which do not constitute an interposition.

Abaye said to him:

From your statement, in which you said that

the halakha

follows Rabbi Yehuda, it follows

by inference

from your statement

that they disagree,

that the Rabbis disagree with Rabbi Yehuda concerning threads made of hair, and maintain that they constitute an interposition when they are used to tie the hair of the head. But did the first tanna not mention interposition with regard to a person’s hair? It is evident that he held that these threads do not constitute an interposition in human hair, since hair is not tightly bound to hair. From where do you derive that they disagreed with Rabbi Yehuda about this?

And if you would say

that it is evident from Rabbi Yehuda’s statement that the first tanna also disagreed with him concerning hair threads tightened around the hair, because

if we had not heard from the first tanna that he was speaking about hair threads—

he, too, would not have been speaking

about hair threads,

that is not a necessary conclusion.

For

perhaps the reason Rabbi Yehuda mentioned hair threads was in the sense of

“just as”; he mentioned them as an analogy. Thus,

Rabbi Yehuda said to them

the Rabbis [the first tanna]:

Just as you concede to me concerning hair threads

that they do not constitute an interposition in hair,

concede to me as well concerning wool threads

that they do not constitute an interposition.

It was stated: Rav Naḥman said that Shmuel said: The Sages concede to Rabbi Yehuda concerning hair threads,

that they do not constitute an interposition.

It was taught

in a beraita

likewise,

that the Sages concede to Rabbi Yehuda concerning hair threads:

Wool threads constitute an interposition; hair threads do not constitute an interposition.

Rabbi Yehuda says: Those of wool and those of hair do not constitute an interposition.

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: The Mishna also proves this precisely,

that the Sages did not disagree concerning hair threads.

As it teaches: A woman may go out with hair threads, whether they are her own,

detached hair

or those of another woman.

And we analyze: The Mishna—

whose opinion is it?

If you say it is Rabbi Yehuda,

who stated the Mishna, then why did the Mishna mention hair threads and no more? After all,

wool threads as well

do not constitute an interposition according to him.

Rather, is it not that the Mishna

is that of the Rabbis?

And infer from it that they do not disagree concerning hair threads,

the Rabbis with Rabbi Yehuda.

And we conclude:

Infer from it.

We learned in the Mishna: A woman

may not

go out

with a totefet.

And we raised the question:

What is a totefet?

Rav Yosef said: A ḥumarta de-ketifa,

a knot that women tie around their necks as protection against the evil eye.

Abaye said to him:

Why should it be prohibited to go out with this on Shabbat?

Let the totefet

be like an amulet

written by

an expert

in amulets, and known to be effective,

and let it be permitted

to go out with it on Shabbat when she takes it out as a garment, since something worn for medicinal purposes is considered for a sick person like one of his garments?

Rather, Rav Yehuda said in the name of Abaye:

The totefet mentioned in the Mishna is

an apuzyeno—

a forehead ornament that a woman places on her head above her forehead.

It was taught likewise,

that a totefet is a forehead ornament and not a ḥumarta de-ketifa, as we learned in a beraita:

A woman may go out with a golden hairnet,

on her head, and we are not concerned that she might pull the hairnet off her head, since she would thereby expose her hair.

And likewise, she may go out

with a totefet and with sarvitin [

explained below]

that are fixed in it,

in the hairnet.

Women customarily fix only the forehead ornament in the hairnet, and not the ḥumarta de-ketifa, which is made as protection against the evil eye. It is thus explained that a totefet is the forehead ornament, in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda’s statement in the name of Abaye.

What is a totefet, and what are sarvitin?

Rabbi Abbahu said: A totefet is

that which encircles her

across her forehead

from one ear to the other.

As for sarvitin—

the woman wraps a covering around her head, and from both sides of her head portions of the covering descend

reaching to her cheeks.

Rav Huna said: Poor women make them of various-colored materials; wealthy women make them of silver and gold.

We learned in the Mishna:

And she may not

go out

with a kavul.

Rabbi Yannai said: I do not know what this kavul is.

If “the seal of a slave”—

we learned

that the Mishna prohibits a maidservant from going out with this seal, a mark made on a slave’s garment as proof and a sign of his servile status—

but a woolen cap,

a cap worn beneath the hairnet with which the woman adorns herself,

is certainly permitted

to go out with it.

Or perhaps “a woolen cap”—

we learned

in the Mishna that she may not go out with it, because there is concern that she might pull it off to show it to her friend;

and all the more so

she may not go out

with the seal of a slave,

Rabbi Abbahu said: It is reasonable to say that the one who said, “We learned a woolen cap,” is correct.

And it was taught likewise,

that a kavul is a woolen cap:

As we learned in a beraita:

A woman may go out with a kavul and with an istama [

explained below]

into a courtyard

that has not been joined by an eruv of courtyards.

Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: She may also

go out

with a kavul into the public domain.

Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar stated a general principle:

Anything that is below the hairnet,

such as a kavul and an istama—

one may go out with it.

The Sages were not concerned that she might pull it off to show it to her friend, since by doing so she would expose her hair.

Anything that is above the hairnet—

one may not go out with it.

From his statement that the kavul is beneath the hairnet, it is evident that it is a woolen cap and not a slave’s seal.

What is an istama?

Rabbi Abbahu said: A bizyonei.

What are bizyonei?

Abaye said that Rav said: A kelya perukhei,

a short cap that gathers the loose hairs protruding outward after she has braided her hair.

The Sages taught: Three matters were stated concerning an istama:

It does not involve the prohibition of diverse kinds,

because it is not made of spun threads, and any garment not made of spun threads does not involve the prohibition of diverse kinds [such as felt].

And it does not contract impurity through nega'im

because it is not called a garment, as the criteria of a garment with regard to nega'im are derived through a textual derivation from kilayim .

And one may not go out with it

on Shabbat

to the public domain.