Shabbat 62a — the Talmud in English

And we raise an objection:

And was it not taught

in a beraita:

Rabbi Oshaya says:

It is permitted for a sick person to go out with an amulet when it is upon him by way of wearing,

provided that he does not hold it in his hand

and carry it four cubits in the public domain.

And again it is difficult: Why did they not worry that a sick person who is not in danger would remove the amulet of writing before entering the lavatory, and afterward come to the prohibition of carrying out?

Rather, here,

where they did not worry that he would remove it upon entering the lavatory,

with what are we dealing—

with an amulet

covered with leather.

For there is no disgrace if he enters the lavatory with it.

And we are astonished:

But tefillin, which are covered with leather ,

for the passages within them are covered by the leather of the tefillin houses,

and

nevertheless

it was taught: One who enters the lavatory—

removes his tefillin at a distance of four cubits and enters.

And why should he not enter with them, since the passages are “covered with leather”?

And we answer:

There,

with tefillin, it is prohibited to enter the lavatory with them

because

they have the Name “Shaddai” on the outside, which is not covered with leather:

Shin,

which is made on the wall of the house of the head-tefillin. And the dalet and yod are on the straps of the tefillin.

For Abaye said: The shin of tefillin—

a halakha given to Moses at Sinai,

to make it from the leather of the house itself.

And Abaye said: The dalet of tefillin,

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

a halakha given to Moses at Sinai.

And Abaye said: The yod of tefillin,

in the knot of the strap of the hand-tefillin, is

a halakha given to Moses at 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—

zarda,

which is a metal protection [for the body] that they wear in war, so that a sword should not prevail against the one wearing it.

A helmet—

Rav said: sanvarata,

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

Greaves—

Rav said: pazmekei,

iron shoes in war, to protect the feet.

And these three things are prohibited because of appearance—for they are worn only in war, lest people suspect him that he is going out to war on Shabbat.

Mishna:

A woman may not go out with a perforated needle,

with which one sews, and it is not an ornament.

Nor with a ring upon which there is a signet,

for this is not an ornament for a woman.

Nor with a kulyaar,

which is an ornament with which she can fasten the openings of her garment, and it is prohibited to go out with it when she does not fasten the openings of her garment with it, but carries it in order to display her wealth .

Nor with a kovelet,

which is a knot in which perfume having a pleasant smell is tied.

Nor with a flask of palaiton,

which is found on her arm.

And in all these cases,

if she went out—

she is liable to a sin-offering,

for they are not ornaments,

the words of Rabbi Meir.

And the Sages exempt

her from a sin-offering

for a kovelet and a flask of palaiton,

because they are an ornament and not a burden. But initially it is prohibited to go out with them, because of a decree lest she remove them and come to the labor of carrying out.

Gemara:

Ulla said: And their opposites apply to a man.

For if he went out with a ring upon which there is a signet, he is exempt, and with one upon which there is no signet, he is liable to a sin-offering .

It follows that Ulla holds: Everything suitable for a man is not suitable for a woman, and something suitable for a woman is not suitable for a man.

Rav Yosef raised an objection

to Ulla’s statement:

It was taught in a beraita:

Shepherds go out

on Shabbat

with sacks,

a garment of sackcloth with which they cover themselves from the rain.

And not

only

did they say that the shepherds alone

are permitted to go out with it.

Rather, every person

is permitted to go out with it,

but

the tanna mentioned shepherds because

it is the practice of shepherds to go out with sacks.

And we learn from the beraita that something suitable for shepherds is permitted for every person, even though they are not accustomed to it. And apparently the same is true of something suitable for a man: it should be permitted for a woman.

Rather, Rav Yosef said,

the beraita is not difficult for Ulla. Because

Ulla holds: Women—

are a people unto themselves.

And what they are accustomed to go out with does not permit a man to go out with it.

Abaye raised an objection to him

against Ulla’s statement:

One who finds tefillin

on Shabbat in the marketplace or on the road

brings them in

by way of wearing,

one pair at a time,

in order to save them.

Both a man and a woman

who find tefillin bring them in by way of wearing.

And according to Ulla it is difficult:

And if you say, “Women

are a people unto themselves,”

but

tefillin

are a positive mitzva whose performance is time-bound,

since at night and on Shabbat there is no mitzva of tefillin,

and women are exempt from every positive mitzva whose performance is time-bound.

If so, the tefillin should be considered a burden for them, and they should be prohibited from wearing them.

And we answer:

There,

with tefillin,

Rabbi Meir holds: Night—

is the time for tefillin, and Shabbat is the time for tefillin.

And if so,

it turns out that

tefillin are

a positive mitzva

whose performance is not time-bound, and women are liable for every positive mitzva whose performance is not time-bound,

and therefore they are not a burden for them .

And we object concerning our Mishna: Why is a woman liable for carrying out a ring upon which there is a signet, when it is worn on her finger,

but it is carrying out in an unusual manner,

for she is not carrying the ring in her hands in the manner of all those who carry burdens?

Rabbi Yirmeya said:

The Mishna here

is speaking of a woman who is a treasurer,

for she is accustomed to place a signet on her finger, and it is not an ornament, because it is not the practice of women to do so. But for this woman it is considered the normal manner of carrying out.

Rava said: You have answered concerning a woman,

that it is speaking of a treasurer.

But

a man

who carries out a ring without a signet—

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

Rather, Rava said: Sometimes a person gives his wife,

even though she is not a treasurer,

a ring upon which there is a signet, to take it to the box,

to store it there,

and she places it

on the finger that is

on her hand until she reaches the box,

and because of this it is the normal manner of carrying out even for a woman who is not a treasurer.

And

the same applies concerning a ring upon which there is no signet:

Sometimes a woman gives her husband a ring upon which there is no signet, to take it to a craftsman to repair, and he places it

on the finger that is

on his hand until he reaches the craftsman.

And because of this it is considered that he carries it out in the normal manner of carrying out.

We learned in our Mishna:

Nor with a kulyaar, nor with a kovelet.

And we explain:

What is a kulyaar?

Rav said:

Makhbanta,

an ornament with which she can fasten the openings of the garment, and now she carries it when it is upon her, but she does not fasten the openings of her garment with it . What is

a kovelet?

Rav said: A humarta de-filon—

a knot in which a drug called filon is tied , which a woman whose smell is bad carries upon herself.

And Rav Ashi likewise said: A humarta de-filon.

The Sages taught: She may not go out with a kovelet, 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, and if she went out, she is exempt; Rabbi Eliezer says: A woman may go out with a kovelet initially.

And we explain:

Over what do they disagree,

these tannaim?

Rabbi Meir holds:

A kovelet

is a burden ,

and she is liable for carrying it out.

And the Sages hold:

A kovelet

is an ornament,

and therefore if she went out with it she is not liable; but initially the Sages prohibited going out with it

lest she remove it and show it

to her friend,

and come to carry it out

four cubits in the public domain.

And Rabbi Eliezer holds: It is permitted initially to go out with a kovelet, because it is not a burden, and the Sages did not decree because

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

who is accustomed to carry it

this perfume—only

a woman whose smell is bad; a woman whose smell is bad will not remove it and show it,

because it is disgraceful for her, and since she does not remove it,

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

And we raise a contradiction in Rabbi Eliezer’s words: in this beraita we learned that Rabbi Eliezer permits it at the outset.

And was it not taught

in another beraita:

Rabbi Eliezer exempts one who goes out with a kovelet and with a flask of peleiton,

and it implies that at the outset she may not go out.

And we answer:

It is not difficult.

This

is the beraita in which we learned that Rabbi Eliezer exempts,

when he stands

Rabbi Eliezer

against Rabbi Meir.

For what is being spoken of is when Rabbi Eliezer’s opinion is brought to dispute Rabbi Meir, who obligates a sin-offering.

This

is the beraita in which Rabbi Eliezer permits it at the outset,

when he stands,

what is being spoken of is

against the Rabbis,

when Rabbi Eliezer’s opinion is brought to dispute the Rabbis, who forbid it.

And the Gemara explains:

When

Rabbi Eliezer stands to dispute

Rabbi Meir, who says, “He is liable for 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 at the outset.

When he stands to dispute the Rabbis, who say, “Exempt, but forbidden,”

as a decree lest she remove it,

he said

Rabbi Eliezer:

It is permitted at the outset.