Shabbat 60a — the Talmud in English

on a peg -

It is a kind of wooden post, wide at the bottom and narrow at the top, and portable. A shopkeeper places it in front of his shop, with nails driven into it, on which he hangs belts and straps for sale. With regard to the laws of ritual impurity,

one follows its nails

because they are its principal component.

on a ladder -

one follows its rungs.

on a balance -

large wooden scales used for weighing wool, wax, and copper;

one follows 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 signet mounted on it.

The yoke supports its projections.

The peg supports its nails.

The ladder supports its rungs.

In the case of the scales, the wood supports the chains.

Rava said

There is no difficulty from the statement of the Mishna in tractate Kelim, which says that a ring is impure whether or not it has a signet, because it is an ornament, against our Mishna, which says that one who carries a ring with a signet is liable to bring a sin-offering.

For when the Mishna there said, “And a ring, whether it has a signet or whether it does not have a signet,”

it taught the two cases separately,

and was not referring to the women's ornaments mentioned earlier.

Rather, this is the explanation of the Mishna there:

A ring that

has a signet

is

a man's ornament,

because this is his usual practice, whereas a ring that

does not have a signet

is

a woman's ornament.

Therefore, a ring in either form receives ritual impurity.

However, if a woman goes out on Shabbat with a ring that has a signet, she is liable to bring a sin-offering, because it is not a woman's ornament.

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

One cannot raise a difficulty from ritual impurity against Shabbat, because the definitions of a vessel in the two areas of law are different.

With regard to

ritual impurity -

the Torah says, “an implement of workmanship.”

And

therefore, even if the ring has a signet,

it is a vessel

with regard to receiving ritual impurity, even though it is not an ornament.

And this is the explanation of the Mishna concerning a ring: It receives ritual impurity either as an ornament when it has no signet, or as an “implement of workmanship” when it has a signet.

But

Shabbat -

the prohibition against carrying on it is

because the Torah says, “a burden,”

whereas an ornament, which is not a burden, does not entail liability when carried.

Therefore, if it

does not have a signet, it is

an ornament,

and it is permitted to go out with it.

But if it

has a signet,

it is

a burden,

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

We learned in the Mishna:

And not with an unpierced needle.

And we discussed it: An unpierced needle -

what use does it have

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

Rav Yosef said:

The status of this needle is that of an ornament,

since a woman gathers her hair with it,

the hair that protrudes beyond her hairstyle. She wraps the hair around the needle and inserts the needle into her head covering beneath it, so that her hair will not be visible.

Abaye said

to Rav Yosef:

Let

this needle

be like a leg band,

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

ritually pure

and does not become impure, because it is not an ornament but merely serves her garments.

And let it be permitted

to go out with it initially on Shabbat. Just as it was permitted to go out with a leg band because we did not fear that she would remove it to show it to her friend, so too we should not fear that she will remove the needle, because it too is made for purposes of modesty, since a woman's hair is considered nakedness.

Rather, it must be that the exemption from liability to bring 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 with it initially.

Rather,

the reason for the exemption is:

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

to either side at the center of her head. Therefore, carrying it entails only a rabbinic prohibition, due to concern that she might remove it.

And we object:

On Shabbat,

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

what use does it have?

Rava said:

It has a gold plate

on the unpierced needle

at one end,

and at the other end of the needle there is a sharp point. Therefore,

on weekdays she parts

her

hair

with the sharp point. But

on Shabbat,

when she does not part her hair, the sharp point is inserted into the head covering, whereas the gold part

she places against her forehead

for adornment.

Mishna:

A man may not go out

with a nailed sandal,

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

And not with a

single sandal

when he has no wound on his foot, because, when his friends laugh at him, he may remove this sandal and thereby come to violate the labor of carrying.

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

And not with phylacteries

that are placed on him.

And not 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 for a sick person it is like an ornament.

And not with armor -

an iron garment for protection from a sword.

And not with a helmet

a leather cap worn beneath an iron helmet.

And not with greaves

of iron, designated for war - a decree because of appearance, so that people will not say that he is going to war on Shabbat.

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

And

with all the items mentioned in the Mishna,

if he went out -

he is not liable to bring a sin-offering.

Gemara:

And we discussed it:

A nailed sandal,

which they decreed one may not go out wearing -

what is the reason?

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

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

and hiding in a cave.

And

the people in the cave said then:

Whoever enters

the cave

may enter, because he can take care that no one sees him as he enters the cave.

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

But whoever goes out may not go out,

lest the enemies see him and learn the location of everyone's hiding place.

And an incident occurred:

one of their sandals 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 people in the cave saw the imprint of the reversed sandal [which appeared as though it were pointing outward from the cave] on the ground,

they thought

that

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

the enemies.

And out of great fear,

they pressed against one another.

And they killed

one another by pressing against each other

more than the enemies killed them.

And because their sandals were nailed, so much killing resulted.

Rabbi Ilai ben Elazar said:

This is what happened:

They were sitting in a cave and heard the sound

of a nailed sandal

above the cave.

They thought 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 thought 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: A person may not go out with a nailed sandal.

And we object:

If so, it should also be prohibited on weekdays,

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

And we answer:

The incident occurred on Shabbat.

Therefore, they decreed only against wearing it on Shabbat.