Shabbat 60a (ס.) — the Talmud in English

kolav -

a type of wooden post, broad at the bottom and narrow at the top, which can be moved. The shopkeeper places it in front of his shop, with nails driven into it, and hangs belts and straps on them for sale. With regard to the laws of ritual impurity -

follow its nails

as they are the principal components.

ladder -

follow its rungs.

arsei -

large wooden scales used to weigh wool, wax, and copper,

follow its chains;

and if the chains are made of metal, the scales are impure.

And the Sages say: Everything follows the component that supports it!

The ring supports the seal upon it.

The yoke supports its plates.

The kolav supports its nails.

The ladder supports its rungs.

With regard to the scales, the wood supports the chains.

Rava said

There is no basis for challenging the statement of the Mishna in tractate Kelim, which says that a ring is impure whether or not it has a seal, because it is an ornament, from our Mishna, which obligates one to bring a sin-offering for carrying out a ring that has a seal.

For when the Mishna there says: “And a ring, whether it has a seal or whether it does not have a seal,”

it teaches with regard to two different cases;

it is not referring to the women’s ornaments mentioned previously.

Rather, this is the explanation of the Mishna there:

A ring that

has a seal on it

is

a man’s ornament,

as this is his usual practice; whereas a ring that

does not have a seal on it

is

a woman’s ornament.

Therefore, a ring of either type can become impure.

But if a woman goes out on Shabbat wearing a ring that has a seal, she is liable to bring a sin-offering, since it is not a woman’s ornament.

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: Are the laws of ritual impurity being compared to Shabbat?

One cannot challenge the halakhot of Shabbat from the halakhot of ritual impurity, because the definitions of a vessel in these two areas differ.

With regard to

ritual impurity -

“a vessel of craftsmanship,” the Merciful One said.

And

therefore, even if a ring has a seal

it is a vessel

with regard to becoming impure, even though it is not an ornament.

And this is the explanation of the Mishna concerning a ring: It can become impure both as an ornament, when it does not have a seal, and as a “vessel of craftsmanship,” when it has a seal.

But

Shabbat -

the prohibition of carrying out on it

is because of a burden, the Merciful One said;

and for an ornament, which is not a burden, one is not liable for carrying it out.

Accordingly, if it

does not have a seal on it,

it is an ornament,

and it is permitted to go out wearing it.

But if it

has a seal on it,

it is

a burden,

and one is liable to bring a sin-offering for carrying it out.

We learned in the Mishna:

“Nor with an unpierced needle.”

And we raised a difficulty concerning it: An unpierced needle -

what use is it fit for

as an ornament for a woman, and why is one not liable to bring a sin-offering for carrying it out?

Rav Yosef said:

The status of this needle is that of an ornament

since a woman gathers her hair with it,

when it protrudes beyond her coiffure. She wraps the hair around the needle and inserts the needle into her hairnet beneath it, so that her hair will not be visible.

Abaye said

to Rav Yosef:

Let

this needle

be like a birit,

a band worn above the lower leg to keep stockings from falling, which is

pure

and does not contract ritual impurity, because it is not an ornament but merely serves her garments.

And let it be permitted

to go out wearing it ab initio on Shabbat. Just as they permitted going out with a birit because they were not concerned that she might remove it to show it to her friend, so too they should not be concerned that she might remove the needle, since it too is made for purposes of modesty, as a woman’s hair is considered erva.

Rather, it must necessarily be that the exemption from a sin-offering for an unpierced needle is not because she gathers her hair with it, for on account of that she would have been permitted to go out wearing it ab initio.

Rather,

the reason for the exemption is:

Rav Adda of Neresh explained it before Rav Yosef: Since a woman parts her hair with it

to either side in the middle of her head. Therefore, carrying it out involves only a rabbinic prohibition, due to concern that she might remove it.

And we challenge this:

On Shabbat,

when a woman does not part her hair [because of concern that her hairs might be pulled out] -

what use is it fit for?

Rava said:

It has a gold plate

on the unpierced needle

at one end,

and the other end of the needle has a barb. Therefore,

on weekdays she parts her

hair

with it using the needle’s barb.

But

on Shabbat,

when she does not part her hair, the barb is inserted into the hairnet, while the gold section

she places against her forehead,

for adornment.

Mishna:

A man may not go out

wearing a nailed sandal,

due to a decree enacted because of an incident that occurred [as explained in the Gemara].

Nor with a

single sandal

when he has no wound on his foot,

because, when his friends mock him, he may remove this sandal and thereby come to violate the prohibition of carrying out.

Nor with phylacteries that are placed upon him.

Nor with an amulet

intended for healing,

when it is not

made

by an expert.

But when it was made by an expert, it is permitted, because it is like an ornament for a sick person.

But when it was made by an expert, it is permitted, because for a sick person it is like an ornament.

Nor with a coat of mail -

an iron garment for protection from a sword.

Nor with a helmet

a leather cap worn beneath an iron helmet.

Nor with greaves

of iron intended for battle, due to a decree because of appearances, lest people say that he is going to war on Shabbat.

This is because these three items are worn only in wartime.

For these three items are worn only in war.

And with regard to all these items mentioned in the Mishna,

if he went out,

he is not liable to bring a sin-offering.

Gemara:

And we raised a difficulty:

A nailed sandal,

which they decreed that one may not go out wearing -

what is the reason?

Shmuel said: It was during the period of the decree.

At the time of the decree, people were fleeing from the decree

and hiding in a cave.

And

the inhabitants of the cave said then:

One who enters

the cave

may enter,

as he can take care that no one sees him when he enters the cave.

But one who goes out may not go out,

lest the enemies see him and the hiding place of everyone become known.

And an incident occurred:

the sandal of one of them was reversed,

as he had put it on backward, and the shape of the reversed sandal was recognizable in its imprint on the ground. When the inhabitants of the cave saw the imprint of the reversed sandal [which appeared as though it were directed outward from the cave] on the ground,

they assumed

that

one of them had gone out, and the enemies had seen him, and now they were coming upon them

—the enemies.

And from the intensity of their fear,

they pressed against one another.

And they killed

one another through the crush

more than the enemies killed them.

And because their sandals were nailed, so many people were killed.

Rabbi Ila’i ben Elazar said:

This is how the incident occurred:

They were sitting in a cave and heard the sound

of a nailed sandal

above the cave.

They assumed that enemies had come upon them. They pressed against one another,

and they killed one another more than the enemies killed them.

Rami bar Yeḥezkel said: They were sitting in a synagogue and heard the sound

of a nailed sandal

behind the synagogue. They assumed that enemies had come

upon them. They pressed against one another and killed one another

more than the enemies killed them.

At that time

they said: No person may go out wearing a nailed sandal.

And we challenge this:

If so, on weekdays too it should be prohibited,

since the decree was not enacted because of Shabbat and its laws.

And we answer:

The incident, when it occurred, occurred on Shabbat.

Therefore, they decreed only with regard to Shabbat.