Shabbat 57b — the Talmud in English

Ravina said:

Exact location on the page")

here

in the baraita,

we are dealing with a katla,

strips of an important garment placed opposite her heart so that the food should not fall onto her garments, and the strips were tied around her neck; and it is usual

for a woman to strangle herself

by tying these strips because

she is pleased that she should appear as one possessing flesh,

and the strip does not injure her, because it is smooth and wide.

We learned in the 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 among them.

Rav Yosef said in the name of Rav Yehuda in the name of Shmuel: The halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda concerning hair threads

that are made of hair and do not constitute an interposition.

Abaye said to him:

From your words, from your saying

the halakha

is in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda, it follows

by implication

from your words

that they disagree

—that the Rabbis disagree with Rabbi Yehuda concerning threads made of hair, and hold that they constitute an interposition when the hair of the head is tied with them. But the first tanna did not mention in his words interposition with regard to a person’s hair, and it is demonstrated that he held that these threads do not constitute an interposition in human hair, since hair is not tightened against hair. From where do you have grounds to say that they disagreed with Rabbi Yehuda concerning this?

And if you would say

that it is demonstrated from Rabbi Yehuda’s words that the first tanna disagreed with him even concerning hair threads tightened against the hair, because

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

he too would not have been speaking

of hair threads,

this is not conclusive.

For

perhaps what Rabbi Yehuda mentioned hair threads, he mentioned them in the sense of

“just as.”

“Just as”

he mentioned them. And thus

he said to them

Rabbi Yehuda to 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 also concerning wool threads

that they do not constitute an interposition.

It was stated: Rav Nahman said in the name of Shmuel: The Sages concede to Rabbi Yehuda concerning hair threads

that they do not constitute an interposition.

It was taught

in a baraita

also so,

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 Nahman bar Yitzhak said: The Mishna also proves precisely

that the Sages did not disagree concerning hair threads.

For it teaches: A woman goes out with hair threads, whether from her own

detached hair

or from her companion’s.

And we infer: The Mishna—

whose is it?

If you say it is Rabbi Yehuda,

if he stated the Mishna, then why did the Mishna say hair threads, and no more? For

wool threads also

do not constitute an interposition according to him.

Rather, is it not so that the Mishna

is

the Rabbis’?

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

that the Rabbis disagree with Rabbi Yehuda.

And we conclude:

Conclude 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 humarta de-ketifa,

a knot that women make on the neck opposite the evil eye.

Abaye said to him:

Why is it forbidden 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 by way of wearing, for an object that is for the sake of healing 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 apuzyenu—

a frontlet that a woman places on her head above the forehead.

It was also taught so

that a totefet is a frontlet and not a humarta de-ketifa, for thus we learned in a baraita:

A woman goes out with a golden hairnet

on her head, and we are not concerned lest she pull the hairnet off her head, since she will not uncover her hair.

And likewise she goes out

with a totefet and with sarvitin

[this will be explained below]

that are fixed in it

in the hairnet.

And it is the practice of women to fix in the hairnet only the frontlet and not the humarta de-ketifa, which is made for the evil eye; and it is explained that a totefet is the frontlet, as Rav Yehuda said in the name of Abaye.

What is a totefet, and what are sarvitin?

Rabbi Abahu said: A totefet—

the one that surrounds it

on her forehead

from one ear to the other.

A sarvit—

the woman wraps a covering over her head, and from both sides of the head parts of the covering descend

reaching as far as 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 a woman may not

go out

with a kavul.

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

If it is “the seal of a slave”—

we learned,

a seal made for a slave on his garment as proof and a sign of his enslavement, and concerning this our Mishna said that a maidservant may not go out with this seal .

But a woolen cap,

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

is quite acceptable

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 lest she pull it off to show it to her companion,

and all the more so

she may not go out

with the seal of a slave,

Rabbi Abahu said: It is reasonable according to the one who says: “A woolen cap,” we learned.

And it was also taught so,

that a kavul is a woolen cap:

For we learned in a baraita:

A woman goes out with a kavul and with an istama

[this will be explained below]

into a courtyard

that is not joined by courtyard eruvin.

Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: She may even

go out

with a kavul into the public domain.

Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar stated a 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 lest she pull it off to show it to her companion, because by doing so her hair would be exposed.

Anything that is above the hairnet—

one may not go out with it.

And from his saying that the kavul is beneath the hairnet, it is demonstrated that it is a woolen cap and not a slave’s seal.

What is an istama?

Rabbi Abahu said: A bizyunei.

What is a bizyunei?

Abaye said in the name of Rav: Kalei peruhei,

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

The Sages taught: Three things were said concerning an istama:

There is no prohibition of diverse kinds in it

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

And it does not become impure through afflictions

because it is not called a garment, for the definitions of a garment with regard to afflictions are learned by a derivation from kilayim.

And one may not go out with it

on Shabbat

into the public domain.