Shabbat 62b — the Talmud in English

And we raised it as an objection:

And what is “Rabbi Meir”?

Where do we find a beraita in which the words of Rabbi Meir were brought without the words of the Sages, and Rabbi Eliezer disagreed with him?

For it was taught: A woman may not go out with a key that is in her hand,

and if she went out, she is liable for a sin-offering,

because it is a burden,

the words of Rabbi Meir.

Rabbi Eliezer exempts with a kuvelet and with a flask of pelayton.

And we raised it as an objection concerning the words of the beraita:

“A kuvelet”—

who mentioned it?

Where was a kuvelet mentioned in the words of Rabbi Meir, concerning which Rabbi Eliezer disagreed with him?

Rather,

the beraita is missing,

the beraita

and this is what it teaches

in it:

Likewise, with a kuvelet and likewise with a flask of pelayton, she may not go out. And if she went out, she is liable for a sin-offering, the words of

Rabbi Meir.

And concerning these words of Rabbi Meir it was said:

Rabbi Eliezer exempts with a kuvelet and with a flask of pelayton.

In what matter is this said,

that Rabbi Eliezer exempts with them?

When they contain perfume; but if they do not contain perfume, she is liable,

for without perfume they are not ornaments.

Rav Adda bar Ahava said: This says,

from the words of Rabbi Eliezer, who obligates concerning the vessel when it does not contain perfume, we learn that

one who carries out food less than the measure in a vessel is liable,

and it is not considered that the vessel is secondary to the food. And he disagrees with an anonymous Mishna below [93b], which exempts in such a case.

For, after all, it does not contain perfume,

but the smell of the perfume that was previously in it is still found in it, and the smell of the perfume in the vessel is considered

as

as

“less than the requisite measure” in

“less than the measure” in

vessel. And

a vessel. And in the beraita

it teaches

in the words of Rabbi Eliezer

“she is liable,

and we do not exempt her because of the smell of the perfume found in the vessel, since it does not have the measure of perfume [for the perfume itself has the measure of any amount, but on condition that there be substance in it, whereas smell has no substance; rather, it is considered less than the measure of carrying out].

And we reject this:

Rav Ashi said:

there is no proof from the words of Rabbi Eliezer concerning everyone who carries out food less than the measure in a vessel. For it is possible to reject that

generally, I can say to you

that Rabbi Eliezer holds

that he is exempt

for carrying out the vessel, because the vessel is secondary to food less than the measure, since all his carrying out of it is for the sake of the food.

But here it is different,

for the vessel is not nullified, because the smell of perfume is inferior to less than the measure, since

there is no substance

of the perfume

at all,

and there is only smell in it; therefore he is considered like one who carries out an empty vessel.

And because the Mishna speaks of types of perfumes, the Gemara brings a verse concerning this matter and interprets it.

In the prophets’ rebuke [in Amos, chapter 6] of Israel, who do not pay attention to the prophets’ words concerning calamity and are occupied with pleasures, it is said:

“And with the first of the oils they anoint themselves”—

Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said:

“the first of the oils”— the choicest of oils,

this is

oil of

pelayton.

Rav Yosef objected:

for we learned in a beraita:

Even concerning pelayton,

that one should not anoint with it,

Rabbi Yehuda ben Bava decreed

after the destruction [for they decreed concerning several things because of mourning over the destruction]

and they did not agree with him.

And if you say that pelayton

has

the aspect of pleasure [שהרי זו תוכחת הנביא על עיסוקם בתענוגים] [for this is the prophet’s rebuke concerning their occupation with pleasures], if so,

Abaye said to him: And according to your reasoning,

why did they not agree with him

the Sages?

Abaye said to him: And according to your reasoning,

that every pleasure mentioned in the prophet’s words must be prohibited because of the destruction, if so, there is a difficulty from

that which is written

there:

“Who drink wine from bowls”

and Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Asi disagreed concerning the interpretation of the verse:

Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Asi.

One said:

that the intention is

“kanishkanin,

a long glass vessel with two openings, and wine is thrown from one to the other.

And one said: That they throw their cups to one another.

Is

this also forbidden,

because of the destruction?

But Rabba bar Rav Huna once arrived at the house of the Exilarch and drank,

the Exilarch

from kanishkanin, and he did not say to him

Rabba bar Rav Huna

anything.

Rather,

the principle is:

Anything that contains pleasure and also contains

also

joy—

the Sages decreed

after the destruction not to do it.

But anything that contains pleasure and does not contain joy,

such as anointing with perfumed oil,

the Sages did not decree,

and for this reason they did not agree with Rabbi Yehuda ben Bava, who decreed that one should not anoint with pelayton oil.

It is further written in that prophecy:

“Who lie upon beds of ivory and stretch themselves upon their couches.”

Rabbi Yosei bar Rabbi Hanina said: It teaches

the verse

that they would urinate in front of their beds naked,

and this is what the verse says, “and stretch themselves.”

Rabbi Abbahu ridiculed this: If so,

the matter is astonishing,

this is what is written

in the continuation of that verse

“Therefore

now they shall go into exile at the head of the exiles.”

And it is difficult: Is it that

because they urinate in front of their beds naked they will go into exile at the head of the exiles?

Rather, Rabbi Abbahu said:

the interpretation of the verse is:

These are people who would eat and drink with one another, join their beds to one another, exchange their wives with one another, and make their couches foul with semen that was not theirs.

And therefore: “They shall go into exile at the head of the exiles.”

Rabbi Abbahu said—and some say, it was taught in a baraita: Three things bring a person to poverty .

And these are they: One who urinates in front of his bed,

when he is

naked,

and not specifically when he is naked; rather, the tanna stated a matter that is more common , for when he is naked he does not go outside to urinate, since it is troublesome for him to put on his clothes and go out. And the matter is repulsive, for he urinates on the ground beside his bed and not into a vessel.

And one who is contemptuous of the washing of the hands

before a meal of bread .

And one whose wife curses him to his face.

And the Gemara explains concerning these three things that bring to poverty what case is being discussed:

one who urinates in front of his bed naked.

Rava said: We said this

that he comes to poverty

only when he turns his face toward his bed—

when his face, at the time of urinating, is toward his bed. And this is a repulsive matter, and he is punished for it.

But

if his face at the time of urinating is turned

toward the outside,

in the outward direction,

we have no concern with it,

for then it is not so repulsive a matter.

And when he turns his face toward his bed,

which we said is a repulsive matter,

we likewise said this only

when he urinates

onto the ground—

onto the ground beside his bed.

But into a vessel,

into a vessel,

we have no concern with it,

for it is not so repulsive a matter.

And one who is contemptuous of the washing of the hands.

Rava said: We said this

that he comes to poverty

only when he does not wash

when he does not wash

his hands at all.

But if he washes and does not wash,

meaning that he washes his hands with an exactly measured quarter-log for his two hands—

we have no concern with it,

and he will not be punished for this with poverty.

And we reject Rava’s words:

and it is not a matter.

For Rav Hisda said:

I washed my hands with a full handful of water,

and they gave me

a reward from Heaven,

a full handful of goodness,

for I merited wealth through this , whereas if I had washed sparingly, I would have been poor.

And one whose wife curses him to his face

comes to poverty.

Rava said

that it is referring specifically to when she curses him

concerning the matter of her ornaments,

because he does not wish to buy them for her.

And this matter

that he comes to poverty because of his wife’s curse

is

specifically in a case

where he has

money to buy them for her

and he does not do so .

Rava, son of Rav Alai, expounded: What is the meaning of that which is written

Rava son of Rav Ilai expounded: What is the meaning of that which is written

in Isaiah’s rebuke:

“And the Lord said: Because the daughters of Zion are haughty”

the interpretation of the verse is—

that they would walk with an erect stature.

“And they walk with outstretched necks”—

that they would walk heel beside toe

to slow their walking so that people would look at them more. And the way of one who walks with an “outstretched neck” is to walk slowly.

“And making eyes false”—

for they would fill them with kohl

filling them with blue pigment

for their eyes, and they would wink

at the young men. They expounded “making false” from two expressions: the color sikra, and an expression of seeing and looking.

“Walking and mincing”—

that they would walk,

one woman

tall beside

a woman

short,

so that she would appear taller than her companion’s head.

“And with their feet they make a tinkling”—

Rav Yitzhak of the school of Rabbi Ami said: It teaches that they would put

they would

myrrh and balsam into their shoes, and walk in the marketplaces of Jerusalem. And when they would reach the young men of

Israel, they would kick the ground and spray upon them

the perfume in their shoes,

and they would introduce the evil inclination into them, like venom in an angry creature.

For its strength was like the strength of the venom of an angry snake that emits venom.

What was their punishment

of these daughters of Zion?

As Rabba bar Ulla expounded:

the verse:

“And it shall be instead of perfume”—

“there shall be a stench”; the place where they would perfume themselves—

shall become decayed, decayed.

“And instead of a girdle, a scab”—

the place where they would gird themselves with tzelatzul

a fine belt,

shall become scabs, scabs

wounds, wounds.

“And instead of artistic work”—

“baldness”; the place

their hair

with which they would adorn themselves shall become baldnesses, baldnesses.

“And instead of a pətigil, a girdle of sackcloth”—

“pətigil

an acronym for “opening of joy.” That is,

openings

the opening of the womb

that bring to joy—

shall become a girdle of sackcloth.

“For instead of beauty”—

Rava said: This is what people say: In place of beauty

the opposite of beauty is

discharge,

the fluid of wounds and sores.

“And the Lord shall make the crown of the head of the daughters of Zion scab”—

Rabbi Yosei bar Rabbi Hanina said: It teaches

that the daughters of Zion were punished by this,

that leprosy broke out upon them,

and they expounded this from

it is written here: “vesapah,” and it is written there

in the section of the leper

“for a swelling and for a scab.”

And “vesapah” is from the expression “sappahat,” which is an expression of leprosy.

“And the Lord shall lay bare their secret places”—

Rav and Shmuel disagreed concerning what punishment is stated here.

One said: That they were poured out like a jug

of blood of a discharge.

And one said: That their openings became like a forest,

they became filled with hair and therefore repulsive for intercourse.

Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: The people of Jerusalem were people of boastfulness

in their manner of speech. For

a man would say to his fellow: With what did you dine today,

and his intention was intercourse?

Was it

with a coarse bread,

a married woman, or

with bread that is not coarse,

a virgin?