Shabbat 59b (נט:) — the Talmud in English

as Rabbi Akiva made for his wife,

as Rabbi Akiva had promised his wife during their poverty: if he would have the means, he would make her an ornament depicting “Jerusalem of Gold.”

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

initially.

And we explain:

With regard to what do they disagree?

Rabbi Meir holds: It is a burden

and she is liable to bring a sin-offering.

And the Rabbis hold: It is an ornament,

but the Sages enacted a decree that she should not go out with it

lest she remove it and 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 reason to issue a decree as with other ornaments, because

who ordinarily goes out with a city of gold?

Only

an important woman. And an important woman

does not remove

her ornaments

and show them

to display them to her friend .

A kelila—

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

Rav prohibited

going out with it,

and Shmuel permitted.

A kelila

of anisqa—

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

everyone agrees that it is forbidden,

because, on account of its importance, there is concern that she will remove it.

They disagree

whether Rav and Shmuel were discussing a kelila

of aroqta [

made of fabric], whose band is decorated with gold and precious stones.

One master,

Rav,

holds: The anisqa is primary,

because the gold and precious stones are what make it important; therefore, there is concern that she will remove it.

And the other master—

Shmuel—

holds: The aroqta is primary,

and the gold section decorating it is not particularly important. Therefore, this kelila is not important in her eyes, and there is no concern that she will remove it.

Rav Ashi taught

the dispute between Rav and Shmuel

in the lenient manner:

A kelila

of aroqta—

everyone agrees that it is permitted.

They disagree

whether Rav and Shmuel were discussing a kelila

of anisqa.

One master,

Rav,

holds

that it is forbidden because

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

And the other master,

Shmuel,

holds: Who ordinarily goes out with a kelila?

Only

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

Rav Yosef fell ill and, as a result of his illness, forgot his learning.

Rav Shmuel bar bar Ḥana said to Rav Yosef: Before your illness, you explicitly told us

that

in the name of Rav,

who said:

A kelila—

is permitted!

This supports Rav Ashi’s interpretation. According to those who disagree with Rav Ashi, above, Rav forbids going out with every kelila, whether it is of anisqa or of aroqta.

According to Rav Ashi, it is clear that Rav Yosef was referring to a kelila made of aroqta.

They said to Rav: There has arrived

from Eretz Yisrael

a tall great man

who is tall

at Nehardea, and he limps,

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

and he taught: A kelila—

is permitted

to go out with it .

Rav said:

Rav,

who

was

the tall great man who limped,

had come? Necessarily—

it was Levi. And from the fact that he came here from Eretz Yisrael,

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

infer—

Rabbi Afes has died [

he died],

Rabbi Afes,

who had been the head of the academy in Eretz Yisrael,

and Rabbi Ḥanina took the headship

of the academy in his place,

and Levi had no one with whom to sit

and learn from him.

Throughout all the days that Rabbi Afes sat at the head, Rabbi Ḥanina sat outside, because he would not submit himself to Rabbi Afes. Out of respect for Rabbi Ḥanina, Levi also sat outside with Rabbi Ḥanina. When Rabbi Afes died, they installed Rabbi Ḥanina at the head.

And

therefore

Levi came

Levi

here

to study Torah, because Levi was not subordinate to Rabbi Ḥanina.

And we challenge this: How did Rav know that Rabbi Afes had died?

Perhaps

the reason Levi came here was

that Rabbi Ḥanina had died, while Rabbi Afes

remained as he was,

still alive,

and Levi had no one with whom to sit,

outside the beit-midrash,

and

therefore

he came here!?

And we answer:

If it were the case that Rabbi Ḥanina had died,

Levi would not have left his place. For

with regard to Levi toward Rabbi Afes,

he would certainly have submitted himself to him!

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

Furthermore,

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

Rabbi Ḥanina could not possibly

not

become the head—

he would certainly become head of the academy and would not die beforehand.

For when Rabbi’s soul was departing,

before his death,

he said: Ḥanina bar Rabbi Ḥama 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 ruling,

twenty-four kelilot from the entire city of Nehardea.

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

And eighteen kelilot went out from a single alley.

Eighteen women went out from one alley wearing kelilot .

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

a distinguished belt; some make it as a sheet of gold, and some make it as a band set with gold squares 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 aroqta—

a garment set with gold.

And Rav Safra said:

The reason for the permission is

that it is like a gilded tallit.

Although it is an ornament, going out with it is permitted because no one is likely to remove it; similarly, 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 anisqa—

entirely a sheet of gold.

And Rav Safra said:

The reason for the permission is

that it is like the belt of kings,

which the Sages did not prohibit on Shabbat, since it is not ordinarily removed .

Ravina said to Rav Ashi: A kimra over a belt—

if he fastens the belt over an additional belt—

what

is the law concerning going out with it?

He said to him,

Rav Ashi:

You mean two belts—

one belt over another; one of them is a burden and is forbidden .

Rav Ashi said: This rasuqa—

a broad piece of a coat—

if it has miferḥayata—

if the coat has short straps hanging from it, with which it can be tied and fastened around the body—

it is permitted

to go out with it on Shabbat. There is no concern that the knots of the straps will open, causing the coat to fall and leading one to perform the labor of carrying.

But if not,

if there are no straps hanging from it,

it is forbidden

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

We learned in the Mishna:

Nor with a katla.

What is a katla?

Manketa fari—

a garment that hangs opposite her heart, whose strap she ties opposite her neck. It is forbidden to go out with it on Shabbat because it is an ornament, and there was concern that the woman would remove it to show it to her friend .

We learned in the Mishna:

Nor with nose rings.

And we explain: The Mishna is referring

to nose rings,

but regarding earrings the Sages did not issue a decree prohibiting her from going out with them, because her ears are covered, and it is difficult for her to open the fastenings and remove earrings placed in the ear .

We learned in the Mishna:

Nor

may she go out

with a ring that has no signet.

And we infer:

This implies

that if she went out with a ring

that has a signet,

she is liable

to bring a sin-offering .

Apparently,

a ring with a signet

is not an ornament,

but a burden.

But we raise a contradiction:

We learned in tractate Kelim:

Women’s ornaments

are susceptible to impurity.

And these are women’s ornaments

that are susceptible to impurity:

katlaot,

gold threads around her neck,

earrings

on her ears,

and rings.

And a ring

that we said is an ornament is

whether

a ring

with a signet or without a signet.

And

likewise

nose rings.

The Mishnayot contradict one another: our Mishna implies that a ring with a signet 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

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

is

Rabbi Neḥemya, who holds that the signet is the principal part of the ring. A woman does not ordinarily use a signet.

This

Mishna in tractate Kelim, which states that it is an ornament,

is

the Rabbis, who hold that the ring itself is the principal part.

As it was taught

in a beraita in tractate Kelim: If the ring

is made of metal, and its signet is made of coral,

which is not susceptible to impurity, it is nevertheless

susceptible to impurity,

because the ring is the principal part, and the ring has the status of a simple metal utensil, which is susceptible to impurity [

even though it has 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.