Shabbat 62a (סב.) — the Talmud in English

And we raise a difficulty:

But was it not taught

in a beraita, a tannaitic source not included in the Mishna:

Rabbi Oshaya says:

A sick person may go out wearing an amulet, when it is on him as an article of clothing,

provided that he does not hold it in his hand

and carry it four cubits in the public domain.

And again this is difficult: Why did the Sages not fear that a sick person who is not dangerously ill might remove a written amulet before entering the lavatory, and then come to violate the prohibition against carrying?

Rather, here

where they did not fear that he would remove it when entering the lavatory,

what are we dealing with?

With an amulet

covered with leather,

so that there is no disgrace in entering the lavatory with it.

And we ask:

But what about phylacteries, which are covered with leather,

as the passages inside them are covered by the leather cases,

and

nevertheless

it was taught: One who enters the lavatory

removes his phylacteries four cubits away and then enters.

Why may he not enter with them, since the passages are covered with leather?

And we answer:

There, with regard to phylacteries,

it is forbidden to enter the lavatory with them

because

the name “Shaddai” is on their outside and is not covered with leather:

Shin,

which is formed on the wall of the case of the head phylacteries. And the dalet and yod on the straps of the phylacteries.

For Abaye said: The shin of the phylacteries is

a halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai,

requiring that it be made from the leather of the case itself.

And Abaye said: The dalet of the phylacteries,

in the knot of the strap behind the head, is also

a halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai.

And Abaye said: The yod of the phylacteries,

in the knot of the strap of the arm, is

a halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai.

We learned in the Mishna:

And not with a coat of mail, nor with a helmet, nor with greaves.

And we explain:

A coat of mail is

zarda,

a metal protective covering worn in battle, so that a sword will not strike the person wearing it.

A helmet—

Rav said: It is a senuarta,

a leather cap worn beneath the metal helmet, which protects the head.

Greaves—

Rav said: They are pazmekei,

iron shoes worn in battle to protect the feet.

These three items are forbidden because of the appearance of wrongdoing, since they are worn only in battle; people might suspect that he is going out to war on Shabbat.

Mishna:

A woman may not go out with a perforated needle

that is used for sewing and is not an ornament.

Nor with a ring that has a signet,

as this is not an ornament for a woman.

Nor with a kula’ar,

which is an ornament with which she can fasten the openings of her garment, but with which she may not go out when she is not fastening the openings of her garment, but is carrying it merely to display her wealth .

Nor with a kovelet,

which is a knot containing fragrant perfume.

Nor with a flask of balsam,

which is found on her arm.

With regard to all these items,

if she went out,

she is liable to bring a sin-offering,

because they are not ornaments;

this is the statement of Rabbi Meir.

And the Sages exempt her

from a sin-offering

for the kovelet and the flask of balsam,

because they are ornaments and not burdens. Nevertheless, one may not go out with them ab initio, by rabbinic decree, lest she remove them and come to perform the labor of carrying.

Gemara:

Ulla said: In the case of a man, the rulings are reversed.

If he went out with a ring that has a signet, he is exempt; and if it does not have a signet, he is liable to bring a sin-offering .

Apparently, Ulla maintains that anything suitable for a man is not suitable for a woman, and anything suitable for a woman is not suitable for a man.

Rav Yosef raises an objection

to Ulla’s statement:

It was taught in a beraita:

Shepherds may go out

on Shabbat

with sacks,

garments made of sackcloth with which they cover themselves from the rain.

And not

only

did they say that shepherds alone

are permitted to go out with them.

Rather, every person

may go out with them,

but

the tanna stated the case of shepherds because

it is customary for shepherds to go out with sacks.

We learn from the beraita that an item suitable for shepherds is permitted for everyone, even though others do not ordinarily wear it. Apparently, the same should apply to an item suitable for a man: it should be permitted for a woman.

Rather, Rav Yosef said,

the beraita does not present a difficulty for Ulla, because

Ulla maintains that women

are a distinct category.

What women ordinarily go out wearing does not permit a man to go out wearing it.

Abaye raised an objection

to Ulla’s statement:

One who finds phylacteries

on Shabbat in the marketplace or on the road

brings them in

by wearing them

one pair at a time,

in order to save them.

Both a man and a woman

who find phylacteries bring them in by wearing them.

According to Ulla, this is difficult:

And if you say that “women

are a distinct category,”

but

phylacteries

are a positive mitzva whose performance is time-bound,

since there is no mitzva of phylacteries at night or on Shabbat,

and women are exempt from every positive, time-bound mitzva,

then the phylacteries should be considered a burden for them, and they should be forbidden to wear them.

And we answer:

There, with regard to phylacteries,

the ruling is based on the fact that

Rabbi Meir maintains that night

is a time for phylacteries, and Shabbat is a time for phylacteries.

And therefore,

it follows that

phylacteries are

a positive mitzva

that is not time-bound, and women are obligated in every positive mitzva that is not time-bound,

and therefore the phylacteries are not considered a burden for them .

And we raise a difficulty from our Mishna: Why is a woman liable for carrying a ring with a signet when it is worn on her finger,

when this is carrying in an unusual manner,

since she is not carrying the ring in her hands, as is the normal manner of carrying burdens?

Rabbi Yirmeya said:

The Mishna here

is dealing with a woman who is a treasurer,

who is accustomed to placing a signet on her finger, and it is not an ornament, since women do not ordinarily do this. But for this particular woman, carrying it in this manner is a normal manner of carrying.

Rava said: You have explained the case of the woman,

by saying that she is a treasurer.

But what can be said regarding

a man

who carries a ring without a signet—

what is there to say? Why is he liable, when this is carrying in an unusual manner, since he does not ordinarily carry this ring on his finger?

Rather, Rava said: Sometimes a man gives his wife

even though she is not a treasurer,

a ring with a signet to take to a box,

to store it there,

and she places

the ring on the finger

of her hand until she reaches the box,

and therefore this is a normal manner of carrying even for a woman who is not a treasurer.

And

the same applies to a ring without a signet:

Sometimes a woman gives her husband a ring without a signet to take to a craftsman for repair, and he places it

on the finger

of his hand until he reaches the craftsman.

Therefore, carrying it is considered a normal manner of carrying.

We learned in our Mishna:

Nor with a kula’ar nor with a kovelet.

And we explain:

What is a kula’ar?

Rav said:

A makhbaneta,

an ornament with which she can fasten the openings of her garment, but now she is carrying it while wearing it without fastening the openings of her garment . What is a

kovelet?

Rav said: A humarta of pilon—

a knot containing a substance called pilon , which a woman with an unpleasant odor carries on her.

And Rav Ashi likewise said: A humarta of pilon.

The Sages taught: A woman may not go out with a kovelet, 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 kovelet ab initio.

And we explain:

With regard to what do these tannaitic sages disagree?

these tannaim?

Rabbi Meir maintains:

The kovelet

is a burden,

and she is liable for carrying it.

But the Sages maintain:

The kovelet

is an ornament,

and therefore if she went out with it she is not liable. Nevertheless, the Sages prohibited going out with it ab initio

lest she remove it and show it

to her friend,

and come to carry it

four cubits in the public domain.

And Rabbi Eliezer maintains:

It is permitted to go out with a kovelet ab initio because it is not a burden, and the Sages did not issue a decree lest

the one who ordinarily carries it

carry this perfume—only

a woman with an unpleasant odor, and a woman with an unpleasant odor will not remove it and show it,

because this would be embarrassing for her. Since she does not remove it,

she will not come to carry it four cubits in the public domain.

And we raise a contradiction between the statements of Rabbi Eliezer. For in this beraita we learned that Rabbi Eliezer permits it ab initio.

And wasn’t it taught

in another beraita:

Rabbi Eliezer exempts [from a sin offering] in the case of a kobbelet and a flask of palaiton,

which implies that she may not go out with them ab initio.

And we answer:

It is not difficult.

This

beraita in which we learned that Rabbi Eliezer exempts,

when he stands

Rabbi Eliezer

against Rabbi Meir.

For it is referring to a case in which Rabbi Eliezer’s opinion is cited in opposition to Rabbi Meir, who holds that she is liable to bring a sin offering.

This

beraita in which Rabbi Eliezer permits it ab initio,

when he stands,

the reference is

against the Rabbis,

when Rabbi Eliezer’s opinion is cited in opposition to the Rabbis, who prohibit it.

The Gemara explains:

When he stands

to dispute

Rabbi Meir, who says that she is liable to bring a sin offering, he said to him

Rabbi Eliezer:

Exempt,

corresponding to the wording “liable,” in order to dispute him; but in practice, Rabbi Eliezer even permits it ab initio.

When he stands against the Rabbis, who say: Exempt, but prohibited,

due to a decree lest she remove it,

he said

Rabbi Eliezer:

Permitted ab initio.