Shabbat 64b (סד:) — the Talmud in English

Because

they indulged

in

their eyes

by the appearance they enjoyed

the forbidden exposure.

Rav Sheshet said: Why did the verse list the ornaments worn outside

a ring

together with the ornaments worn inside

a kumaz?

To tell you:

Anyone who gazes [

with the intention of deriving pleasure]

at a woman’s little finger

which is the place where a ring is worn, is

as though he were gazing at the place of nakedness,

for in both cases they brought an offering of atonement for the sight.

Mishna:

A woman may go out with hair threads

that she braids in her hair

whether

the threads are detached

from

her own hair,

whether

the threads are

from

hair

belonging to another woman,

whether they are

from an animal

such as horsehair.

And

she may likewise go out

with a totet

a gold plate extending from ear to ear,

and with sarvitin

a plate that she wraps around her head, which reaches only to the cheeks and hangs down on either side of her cheeks,

when they are sewn

into her hairnet. They permitted her to go out with them, and they were not concerned that she might remove the hairnet from her head in the public domain, since she would not thereby uncover her hair.

Anything that the Sages prohibited taking out into the public domain may not be taken out into an unpartitioned courtyard, except

for a kevel,

a woolen cap worn on her head, with which she may go out,

and for a sheitel in a courtyard

that is not enclosed by an eruv, so that she will not become unattractive to her husband.

Likewise, a woman may go out into the public domain

with a wad

in her ear,

when it is tied to her ear and is made to absorb the dirt and moisture of the ear. Since it is tied, they were not concerned that it might fall and that she would carry it four cubits in the public domain.

And with a wad

that is tied

in her sandal,

which she places there for comfort.

And with a wad that she prepared for her menstruation,

placed in that place so that it will absorb the blood and not fall onto her and cause her discomfort .

Likewise, a woman may go out

with pepper,

which a woman with bad breath places in her mouth.

And with a ball of salt,

which she places in her mouth as a remedy for her teeth.

And with anything placed in her mouth

she may go out.

She may go out with these three remedies,

provided that she does not put them in place initially on Shabbat,

but only before Shabbat, because on Shabbat it is prohibited to take remedies, lest she come to grind medicinal substances on Shabbat .

And if it fell,

she may not replace the remedy on Shabbat, for just as it is prohibited to put a remedy in place initially on Shabbat, so too it is prohibited to replace it .

A prosthetic tooth,

which is

a golden tooth, Rabbi permits

her to go out with it,

but the Sages prohibit

it. Since this tooth differs from her other teeth, they were concerned that people might laugh at her, causing her to remove the tooth and carry it four cubits in the public domain.

Gemara:

And it is necessary

for the Mishna to teach all three cases in which she may go out with hair threads that she braids into her hair: whether they are her own, whether they belong to another woman, or whether they are from an animal.

Because

if it had taught us

only that she may go out with

her own

hair, we might have erred and thought that the Sages permitted only her own hair

because it is not repulsive,

and people would not laugh at her, so she would not remove it.

But

with the hair of

another woman, which is repulsive, say that they did not permit it,

lest people laugh at her and she consequently remove it. Therefore the Mishna also teaches that hair belonging to another woman is permitted.

And if it had taught us that

hair belonging to

another woman

is permitted, we would have thought that the Sages permitted this specifically

because it is of her kind,

and the matter is not discernible, so people would not laugh at her.

But

animal hair,

which

is not of her kind, say that they did not permit it,

the Sages;

it is necessary

for the Mishna to teach that she may also go out with animal hair.

A tanna taught:

They permitted going out with hair threads,

provided that a young woman does not go out

whose hair is black

with

hair threads

of an elderly woman,

which are white,

and

she may not go out,

an elderly woman with

hair threads

of a young woman,

whose hair is black, since the Sages were concerned that, because the matter is ridiculous, she might remove them.

And we raised a difficulty:

Granted, an elderly woman with a young woman’s hair

needs to be taught, for even though

it is an adornment for her,

they prohibited her from going out with it. But

a young woman with

threads

of an elderly woman—why

does the beraita need to say that she may not go out? It is obvious, for

it is a disgrace to her!

And we answer: Indeed, it is obvious that a young woman may not go out with an elderly woman’s hair, and the tanna need not teach it.

Since

because

he taught the case of an elderly woman with a young woman’s hair, he also taught the case of a young woman with an elderly woman’s hair.

We learned in the Mishna: She may go out

with a kevel and a sheitel in a courtyard.

Rav said: Anything that the Sages prohibited taking out

into the public domain may not be taken out into a courtyard,

lest she forget and go out with it into the public domain,

except for a kevel and a sheitel,

which they permitted her to take out into a courtyard.

Rabbi Anani bar Sasson said in the name of Rabbi Yishmael: Everything—

all ornaments are permitted in a courtyard

like a kevel .

We learned

in the Mishna: She may go out

with a kevel and a sheitel in a courtyard.

And this is difficult:

Granted, according to Rav,

who prohibited going out with all ornaments into a courtyard,

the Mishna is understandable;

the Mishna.

But according to Rabbi Anani bar Sasson, it is difficult

from the Mishna, for according to his words they permitted going out with all ornaments; why, then, does the Mishna permit only a kevel and a sheitel?

And we answer: Rabbi Anani bar Sasson,

in whose name did he state this? In the name of Rabbi Yishmael bar Yosei!

And if so, there is no difficulty, for

Rabbi Yishmael bar Yosei is a tanna, and he disputes

the Mishna.

And we raise a difficulty:

And Rav,

who holds that going out with all ornaments into a courtyard is prohibited,

what is different about these

a kevel and a sheitel, which they permitted her to take out into a courtyard?

Ulla said: So that she will not become unattractive

to her husband .

They permitted her certain attractive ornaments, and the Sages were concerned that she might otherwise become unattractive to her husband,

as it is taught

in a beraita:

It is written:

“And she shall remain in her impurity”—

the early Sages

interpreted the verse according to its plain meaning, that she should be like one ostracized and distanced from her husband. Therefore

they said that a menstruant woman should not paint

her eyes

or apply rouge,

red coloring to her face,

or adorn herself with colored garments

during the days of her menstruation.

Until Rabbi Akiva came

and taught

not to prohibit this. For

if you do so, you make her unattractive

to her husband,

and her husband will consequently divorce her. Rather, what is the meaning of the verse, “And she shall remain in her impurity”?

We expound it as referring

to

the impurity of

her menstruation: she remains so until she enters the water

to immerse. Even after her seven days have passed and her flow has ceased, she is not pure until immersion.

Rav Yehuda said in the name of Rav: Wherever the Sages prohibited

something as a prohibition and enactment, such as not going out on Shabbat

because of appearance,

so that people would not suspect him of a prohibition—for example, not going out in military garments [armor, a helmet, and boots]—

it is prohibited even in the innermost rooms

to wear it.

We learned: And

the animal may not go out

with a bell, even though it is

it is

stopped

and makes no sound, because it appears as though he is leading it to the marketplace to sell it, and therefore hung a bell on it to beautify it.

And another beraita teaches

in a beraita:

He may stop

the animal’s

bell at its neck and walk with it in the courtyard,

because there is no concern about appearance in a courtyard.

This is difficult according to Rav Yehuda in the name of Rav, who said that anything prohibited because of appearance is prohibited even in the innermost rooms: Why, then, does the beraita permit him to walk with it in the courtyard when a bell is at its neck?

And we answer: This statement of Rav Yehuda in the name of Rav—that it is prohibited even in the innermost rooms—is a dispute

between tannaim.