Shabbat 59b — the Talmud in English

as Rabbi Akiva did for his wife

as Rabbi Akiva promised his wife, at the time of their poverty, that if he would have the means, he would make her an ornament on which “Jerusalem of Gold” was depicted.

The Sages taught: A woman may not go out with a city of gold, and if she went out, she is liable to a sin-offering; the words of Rabbi Meir.

And the Sages say: She may not go out, but if she went out, she is exempt.

Rabbi Eliezer says: A woman may go out with a city of gold

even

ab initio.

And we explain:

With regard to what do they disagree?

Rabbi Meir holds: It is a burden

and she is liable to a sin-offering.

And the Rabbis hold: It is an ornament

and there is a rabbinic decree that she may not go out with it,

lest she remove it and show it to her

to show it to her friend,

and come to carry it

in the public domain.

And Rabbi Eliezer holds:

that in this case there is no place for a decree as with other ornaments, because

who is accustomed to go out with a city of gold?

Only

an important woman. And an

important woman does not remove

her ornaments

and show them

to show them to her friend.

A kelila —

like a zar, made of a sheet of gold that she ties on her forehead. Some make it of silk spun with gold, and the woman ties it from ear to ear —

Rav prohibited

going out with it,

and Shmuel permitted.

A kelila

of aniskha —

made entirely of cast metal, a sheet of gold or silver —

everyone agrees that it is prohibited,

because, owing to its importance, there is concern that she will remove it.

They disagree

Rav and Shmuel concerning a kelila

of arukata

[which is made of cloth], whose band is decorated with gold and precious stones.

One master,

Rav,

holds: The aniskha is primary,

for the part of gold and precious stones is what is important in it; therefore they were concerned that she might remove it.

And the other master —

Shmuel —

holds: The arukata is primary,

and the part decorated with gold is not so important; therefore this kelila is not important in her eyes, and they were not concerned that she might remove it.

Rav Ashi taught

the dispute between Rav and Shmuel

as a leniency:

For a kelila

of arukata —

everyone agrees that it is permitted.

They disagree

Rav and Shmuel concerning a kelila

of aniskha.

One master,

Rav,

holds:

that it is prohibited because

perhaps she will remove it and show it, and come to carry it.

And the other master,

Shmuel,

holds: Who is accustomed to go out with a kelila?

Only

an important woman, and an important woman does not remove it and show it.

Rav Yosef became ill, and because of his illness he forgot his learning.

Rav Shmuel bar bar Hana said to Rav Yosef: You explicitly told us

before your illness

in the name of Rav,

who said:

A kelila —

is permitted!

This is proof of Rav Ashi’s position. For according to those who disagree with Rav Ashi, above, every kelila is prohibited to go out with according to Rav, whether it is of aniskha or of arukata.

And according to Rav Ashi, it is understood that Rav Yosef said this concerning a kelila made of arukata.

They said to Rav: There has arrived

from the Land of Israel

a tall great man

who is tall

to Nehardea, and he limps,

he limps on his thigh [as explained in Sukkah 53],

and he taught: A kelila —

is permitted

to go out with it.

He said,

Rav:

Who

is the

tall great man who limps,

and came? Necessarily —

Levi

he is. And from the fact that he came here from the Land of Israel,

infer from it —

Rabbi Ephes has died

[he died],

Rabbi Ephes,

who had been head of the academy in the Land of Israel,

and Rabbi Hanina sat at its head

of the academy in his place,

and Levi had no one with whom to sit beside him

and learn from him.

For all the days that Rabbi Ephes sat at the head, Rabbi Hanina sat outside, since he did not submit himself to Rabbi Ephes. And out of respect for Rabbi Hanina, Levi also sat with Rabbi Hanina outside. When Rabbi Ephes died, they seated Rabbi Hanina at the head.

And

therefore

Levi came

Levi

here

to study Torah, since Levi was not subordinate to Rabbi Hanina.

And we object: How did Rav know that Rabbi Ephes had died?

Perhaps

the reason for Levi’s coming here is

that Rabbi Hanina died, while Rabbi Ephes —

remains as he stood,

that he is still alive,

and Levi had no one with whom to sit beside him,

outside the academy,

and

therefore

he came here!?

And we answer:

If it were so that Rabbi Hanina had died,

Levi would not have exiled himself from his place, because

with regard to Levi toward Rabbi Ephes,

he was submissive to him!

It was only out of respect for Rabbi Hanina that he did not enter Rabbi Ephes’s academy.

And furthermore,

there was another reason that it was clear to Rav that Rabbi Hanina had not died: because

Rabbi Hanina could not be that he would not rule

it was impossible

that he would not become ruler —

rather, certainly he would be head of the academy and would not die beforehand.

For when his soul was about to depart

before his death,

Rabbi said: Hanina son of Rabbi Hama shall sit at the head

of the academy

! And

Rabbi’s statement would certainly be fulfilled, for

it is written concerning the righteous, “You shall decree a matter —

and it shall be established for you.”

Levi taught in Nehardea: A kelila —

is permitted

to go out with it.

There went out

following Levi’s permission

twenty-four kelilot from all of Nehardea.

Rabba bar Avuha taught in Mehoza: A kelila is permitted.

And eighteen kelilot went out from a single alley.

From one alley, eighteen women went out with a kelila.

Rav Yehuda said in the name of Rav Shmuel: A kamra —

a valuable belt; some make it a sheet of gold, and some make it a band with gold settings and stones fixed in it —

is permitted

to go out with it on Shabbat.

There are those who say:

They permitted going out only with a belt

of arukata —

which is a garment set with gold.

And Rav Safra said:

The reason for the permission is

as is the case with a gilded prayer shawl,

which, although it is an ornament, they permitted going out with it because a person is not likely to remove it; and the same applies here, for a person does not remove his belt in the marketplace, lest his garments fall.

And there are those who say:

They permitted going out also with a belt

of aniskha —

which is entirely a sheet of gold.

And Rav Safra said:

The reason for the permission is

as is the case with the belt of kings,

for they did not decree against it on Shabbat, since it is not customary to remove it.

Ravina said to Rav Ashi: A kamra over the belt —

if he girds the belt over an additional belt —

what

is the law regarding going out with it?

He said to him,

Rav Ashi:

You are speaking of two belts —

a belt over a belt; one of them is a burden and is prohibited.

Rav Ashi said: This rasuka —

a broad piece of a cloak —

if it has miferhayata —

if the cloak has short straps hanging from it, with which to tie it and fasten it around oneself —

it is permitted

to go out with it on Shabbat, and there is no concern lest the straps’ knots open, the cloak fall, and he come to perform the labor of carrying.

And if not,

if straps do not hang from it —

it is prohibited

to go out with it, as a decree lest it fall.

We learned in the Mishna:

And not with a katla.

What is a katla?

A mankheta fari,

a garment that she hangs opposite her heart and ties its strap opposite her neck. It is prohibited to go out with it on Shabbat because it is an ornament, and they were concerned that the woman would remove it in order to show it to her friend.

We learned in the Mishna:

And not with nose-rings.

And we explain: The Mishna is referring

to nose-rings,

but with earrings they did not decree that she may not go out, because her ears are covered, and it is troublesome for her to open her fastenings and remove the earrings placed in her ears.

We learned in the Mishna:

And she may not

go out

with a ring that has no seal.

And we infer:

This

means, if she went out with a ring

that has a seal —

she is liable

for a sin-offering.

It follows

that a ring with a seal

is not an ornament

but a burden.

And we raise a contradiction:

We learned in tractate Kelim:

Women’s ornaments —

are susceptible to impurity.

And these are the women’s ornaments

that are susceptible to impurity:

katlaot,

golden threads around her neck,

nose-rings

on the ears,

and rings.

And a ring

that we said is an ornament is

both

a ring

that has a seal and one that has no seal.

And

likewise

nose-rings.

And the Mishnayot contradict one another: our Mishna implies that a ring with a seal is not an ornament, whereas the Mishna in tractate Kelim explicitly states that it is an ornament.

And Rabbi Zeira said: It is not difficult

to reconcile the contradiction between the Mishnayot.

This

— the Mishna in tractate Shabbat, which holds that it is not an ornament but a burden —

is Rabbi Nehemiah,

who holds that the seal is the principal part of the ring. And a woman is not accustomed to use a seal.

This

— the Mishna in tractate Kelim, which says that it is an ornament —

is the Rabbis,

who hold that the principal part is the ring itself.

As it was taught

in a beraita in tractate Kelim: If the ring

is made of metal, and its seal is coral,

which does not contract impurity — it is

susceptible to impurity,

because the ring is primary, and the ring has the status of a simple metal vessel, which contracts impurity [despite having no receptacle].

But if the ring

is of coral, and its seal is of metal

, then it is

pure

, because coral [which is wood] does not receive impurity, in accordance with the law of plain wooden vessels, for wooden vessels do not receive impurity unless they have a receptacle; and since the ring itself is made of wood, it is pure.

And Rabbi Nehemiah deems it impure .

For Rabbi Nehemiah would say: In a ring

one followed

always

after its seal

, and even when the ring is made of coral, it is impure because the seal, which is made of metal, is the principal part of the ring.

And likewise

with a yoke

of an ox made of wood, which has no receptacle, into which they would insert two pegs [called simlonim]—

one followed after its simlonim

. For if the simlonim are made of metal, the yoke is impure, despite its being a plain wooden vessel, since the simlonim, which are of metal, are the principal part.