Shabbat 62b (סב:) — the Talmud in English

And we raised an objection concerning this:

And what is the opinion of Rabbi Meir?

Where do we find a beraita in which the statement of Rabbi Meir was brought without the statement of the Rabbis, and Rabbi Eliezer disagreed with him?

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

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

because it is a burden,

the statement of Rabbi Meir.

Rabbi Eliezer exempts a woman who goes out with a kovelet or with a flask of paleyton.

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

A kovelet—

who mentioned it?

Where was a kovelet mentioned in Rabbi Meir’s statement, so that Rabbi Eliezer disagreed with him concerning it?

Rather,

the beraita is incomplete,

the beraita,

and this is what it teaches

in it:

And similarly, with regard to a kovelet and similarly with regard to a flask of paleyton, she may not go out. And if she went out, she is liable to bring a sin-offering, the statement of

Rabbi Meir.

And concerning these words of Rabbi Meir it was stated:

Rabbi Eliezer exempts a woman who goes out with a kovelet or with a flask of paleyton.

In what case is this statement

that Rabbi Eliezer exempts her with these objects applicable?

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

because without perfume they are not jewelry.

Rav Adda bar Ahava said: That is to say,

from Rabbi Eliezer’s statement, in which he holds one liable for the vessel when it contains no perfume, we learn that

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

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

For indeed, there is no perfume in it,

but nevertheless the scent of the perfume that had previously been in it remains in it, and the scent of the perfume in the vessel is considered

as

carrying

“less than the requisite measure” in

a

vessel. And

in the beraita it

teaches

with regard to Rabbi Eliezer that she is

liable,

and she is not exempt on account of the scent of the perfume remaining in the vessel, since there is not a requisite measure of perfume in it. [The measure for perfume itself is even the smallest amount, but this is on condition that there be actual substance of perfume. In contrast, scent has no actual substance; rather, it is considered less than the measure for carrying.]

And we reject this:

Rav Ashi said:

There is no proof from Rabbi Eliezer’s statement concerning everyone who carries food less than the requisite measure in a vessel. For it is possible to reject this and say that

in general, I can say to you

that Rabbi Eliezer holds that one is

exempt

for carrying out the vessel, because the vessel is subordinate to food that is less than the requisite measure, as all of its carrying is for the sake of the food.

But here is different,

as the vessel was not rendered subordinate, because the scent of perfume is inferior to an amount less than the requisite measure, since

there is no actual substance

of the perfume

at all; it contains only scent. Therefore, it is considered like carrying out an empty vessel.

And because the Mishna is speaking of types of perfume, the Gemara cites a verse concerning this matter and explains it.

In the prophets’ rebuke [in Amos, chapter 6] of Israel, who paid no attention to the prophets’ words concerning calamity and occupied themselves with pleasures, it is stated:

“And they anoint themselves with the finest oils”—

Rav Yehuda said in the name of Shmuel: “‘The finest oils’—the choicest of oils—is

this

oil of

paleyton.

Rav Yosef raised an objection:

As we learned in a beraita:

Even concerning paleyton,

with which one may not anoint oneself,

Rabbi Yehuda ben Bava decreed

after the destruction [for he decreed concerning several matters because of the pain of the destruction]

and the Sages did not agree with him.

And if you say that paleyton

contains

an element of pleasure [as this is the prophet’s rebuke of their preoccupation with pleasures], then

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, then there is a difficulty from

that which is written

there:

“Who drink wine from bowls,”

and Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Asi disagreed over the interpretation of the verse.

One said: The reference is to

kanishkanin,

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

And one said: They would throw their cups to one another.

Is

this also forbidden

because of the destruction?

But Rabba bar Rav Huna once happened to come to the house of the Exilarch, and he drank

while the Exilarch drank

from a kanishkanin, and he did not say to him

anything at all.

Rather,

the principle is:

Anything that contains pleasure and also contains

also

joy—

the Sages decreed

after the destruction that it should not be done.

But anything that contains pleasure but does not contain joy,

such as anointing oneself with perfumed oil,

the Sages did not decree.

Therefore, they did not agree with Rabbi Yehuda ben Bava, who decreed that one should not anoint oneself with paleyton oil.

Another verse is written in that prophecy:

“Who lie on beds of ivory and lounge upon their couches.”

Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, said: The verse teaches

that they would urinate water naked in front of their beds,

and this is what the verse says: “and lounge.”

Rabbi Abbahu ridiculed this interpretation: If so,

the matter is perplexing.

This is what is written

in the continuation of that verse:

“Therefore

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

And the difficulty is:

Is it because they urinated naked in front of their beds that they shall go into exile at the head of the exiles?

Rather, Rabbi Abbahu said:

The meaning 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 soil their couches with semen that was not their own.

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

Rabbi Abbahu said, and some say that 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.

This does not mean specifically when he is naked; rather, the tanna mentioned the more common circumstance , since when he is naked he does not go outside to urinate, because it is burdensome to put on his clothes and go out. And the matter is repulsive: he urinates on the ground beside his bed rather than into a vessel.

And one who treats the washing of the hands with contempt

before a meal involving bread .

And a man whose wife curses him to his face.

The Gemara explains the circumstances of these three things that bring a person to poverty:

One who urinates naked in front of his bed.

Rava said: We stated

that he comes to poverty

only when he turns his face toward his bed—

when, at the time he urinates, his face is directed toward his bed. This is repulsive, and he is punished for it.

But

if, at the time he urinates, his face is turned

toward the outside,

in the direction away from the room,

we have no concern,

as this is not so repulsive.

And when he turns his face toward his bed,

which we said is repulsive,

we stated this only

when he urinates

onto the ground—

the ground beside his bed.

But if he urinates into a vessel,

a vessel,

we have no concern,

as it is not so repulsive.

And one who treats the washing of the hands with contempt.

Rava said: We stated

that he comes to poverty

only when he does not wash

that he does not wash

his hands at all.

But if he washes and does not wash,

meaning that he washes his hands with exactly a revi'it of water for both hands,

we have no concern,

and he will not be punished with poverty for this.

And we reject Rava’s statement:

But this is not so.

For Rav Ḥisda said: I washed with a full handful of water,

I washed my hands with full handfuls of water,

and they gave me

a reward from Heaven,

a full handful of goodness,

for I became wealthy through this . Had I washed sparingly, I would have been poor.

And a man whose wife curses him to his face

comes to poverty.

Rava said

that this refers specifically to a case in which she curses him

concerning the matter of her jewelry,

because he does not want to buy it for her.

And this statement applies

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

only

in a case where

he has

money with which to buy it for her

but does not do so .

Rava, son of Rav Alai, 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 meaning of the verse is—

that they would walk with erect stature.

“And walk with outstretched necks”—

that they would walk heel beside toe,

to slow their pace so that people would look at them for longer. It is the way of one who walks with an “outstretched neck” to walk slowly.

“Making eyes”—

for they would fill their eyes with blue eye paint,

filling them with blue coloring

for their eyes, and they would signal

to the young men. The word “making eyes” was expounded from two languages: the coloring called sikra, and the language of seeing and looking.

“Walking and mincing”—

that they would walk,

one

woman who was

tall beside

a

short

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

“And tinkling with their feet”—

Rav Yitzḥak of the school of Rabbi Ami said: This teaches that they would place

they would

put myrrh and balsam in their shoes and walk in the markets of Jerusalem. And when they reached the young men of

Israel, they would kick the ground and spray upon them

the perfume in their shoes,

and instill in them the evil inclination, like venom in an angry serpent.

For its force was as strong as the venom of an angry snake that injects venom.

What was the punishment of these daughters of Zion?

As Rabba bar Ulla expounded

the verse:

“And instead of perfume—

there shall be rot,” the place where they would perfume themselves—

will become rotten, rotten places.

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

the place where they would gird themselves with a tzaltzul,

a fine belt,

will become covered with welts, welts,

clusters of bruises.

“And instead of a work of gold, baldness”—

baldness; the place

where their hair

with which they adorned themselves was, will become bald, bald patches.

“And instead of a splendid robe, a girdle of sackcloth”—

“petigil”

is an acronym for “opening of joy,” meaning

openings,

the opening of the womb

that bring joy—

will become girded with sackcloth.

“For instead of beauty”—

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

there is

lesion,

the discharge from bruises and wounds.

“And the Lord will expose the crown of the daughters of Zion”—

Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, said: This teaches

that the daughters of Zion were punished in that

leprosy erupted upon them.

And they derived this from the similarity between

that which is written here: “And expose,” and that which is written there

in the portion concerning the leper:

“For a swelling and for a scab.”

And “expose” is from the same linguistic root as “scab,” which denotes leprosy.

“And the Lord will uncover their secret parts”—

Rav and Shmuel disagreed over the punishment mentioned here.

One said: Their discharge of menstrual blood will spill like a jug,

the blood of a discharge.

And one said: Their openings will become like a forest,

filled with hair and thereby repulsive for intercourse.

Rav Yehuda said in the name of Rav: The people of Jerusalem were arrogant

in the way they spoke. A

man would say to his fellow: What did you dine on today?

And his intention was intercourse.

Was it

with leavened bread,

meaning a woman who had previously had intercourse, or

with unleavened bread,

meaning a virgin?