Babylonian Talmud: Tractate Shabbath

Folio 64a

the meaning of utensil' [here] from [the employment of] 'utensil' there, answered he.¹

'A sack goes beyond a garment, in that it is unclean as woven material.' Is then a garment not woven material? — This is its meaning: A sack goes beyond a garment, for though it is not of woven material, yet it is unclean.²  For what is it fit? — Said R. Johanan: A poor man plaits three threads [of goats' hair]³  and suspends it from his daughter's neck.

Our Rabbis taught: [And upon whatsoever any of them … doth fall, it shall be unclean; whether it be any vessel of wood … or] sack:⁴  I know it only of a sack:⁵  how do we know to include a horse cover and the saddle band?⁶  Therefore it is said, 'or sack'.⁷  I might think that I can include ropes and cords;⁸  therefore 'sack' is stated: just as a sack is spun and woven, so must everything be spun and woven.⁹  Now, concerning the dead it is stated, and all that is made of skin, and all work of goats' hair … ye shall purify yourselves:¹⁰  this is to include a horse cover and the saddle band.¹¹  I might think that I can include ropes and cords. (But it [the reverse] is logical:¹²  [the Divine Law] teaches defilement by a dead reptile, and it teaches defilement by the dead: just as when it teaches defilement by a reptile, it declares unclean only that which is spun and woven; so when it teaches defilement by the dead, it declares unclean only that which is spun and woven. How so! If it is lenient in respect to defilement through a reptile, which is lighter, shall we be lenient¹³  in respect to defilement by the dead, which is graver?)¹⁴  Therefore 'raiment and skin' is stated twice, to provide a gezerah shawah.¹⁵  Thus: raiment and skin are mentioned in connection with reptiles,¹⁶  and also in connection with the dead:¹⁷  just as the 'raiment and skin' which are mentioned in connection with reptiles, it [Scripture] declares unclean only that which is spun and woven, so the 'raiment and skin' which are stated in connection with the dead, it declares unclean only that which is spun and woven;¹⁸  and just as 'raiment and skin' which are stated in connection with the dead, anything made of goats' hair is unclean, so 'raiment and skin' which are stated in connection with reptiles, anything made of goats' hair is unclean.¹⁹  Now, I know it only of that which comes from goats: how do I know to include what is produced from the tail of a horse or a cow? Therefore it is stated, 'or sack'.²⁰  (But you have utilized it in respect of a horse cover and saddle bands? — That was only before the gezerah shawah was adduced; but now that we have the gezerah shawah, it [sc. the 'or'] is superfluous.)²¹  And I know this only in the case of a reptile: how do we know it in respect to defilement by the dead? But it is logical:²²  [Scripture] declares uncleanness through the dead, and also declares uncleanness through reptiles: just as when it declares uncleanness through the dead, it treats that which is produced from the tail of a horse or cow as that which is made of goats' hair, so when it declares uncleanness through the dead, it treats that which is produced from the tail of a horse or a cow as that which is made of goats' hair. How so! If it [Scripture] includes [this] in defilement until evening, which is extensive, shall we include [it] in seven days' defilement, which is limited?²³  Therefore 'raiment and skin' are stated twice, to provide a gezerah shawah. 'Raiment and skin' are stated in connection with reptiles, and 'raiment and skin' are stated also in connection with the dead; just as raiment and skin,' which are stated in connection with reptiles, that which comes from the tail of a horse or cow is treated as that which is made of goats' hair, so 'raiment and skin' which are stated in connection with the dead, that which is produced from the tail of a horse or cow is treated as that which is made of goats' hair. And this must be redundant.²⁴  For if it is not redundant, one can refute [the deduction]: as for a reptile, that is because it defiles by the size of a lentil.²⁵  In truth, it is redundant. For consider: a reptile is likened to semen, for it is written, a man whose seed goeth from him,²⁶  in proximity to which it is written, or whosoever toucheth any creeping thing;²⁷  while in respect to semen it is written, and every garment and every skin, whereon is the seed of copulation;²⁸  then what is the purpose of 'raiment and skin' written by the Divine Law in connection with reptiles? Infer from this that its purpose is to leave it redundant.²⁹  Yet it is still redundant [only] on one side:³⁰  this is well on the view that where it is redundant on one side we can learn [identity of law] and cannot refute [the deduction]; but on the view that we can learn, but also refute,³¹  what can be said? — That [stated] in connection with the dead is also redundant. For consider: the dead is likened to semen, for it is written, 'and whoso toucheth anything that is unclean by the dead, or a man whose seed goeth from him'; while in respect to semen it is written, 'and every garment and every skin, whereon shall be the seed of copulation. What then is the purpose of 'raiment and skin' written by the Divine Law in connection with the dead? Infer from this that its purpose is to leave it redundant.

And we have brought the Lord's oblation, what every man hath gotten, of jewels of gold, ankle chains, and bracelets, signet-rings, ear-rings, and armlets.³²  R. Eleazar said: 'Agil is a cast of female breasts; kumaz is a cast of the womb. R. Joseph observed: Thus it is that we translate it³³  mahok, [meaning] the place that leads to obscenity [gihuk]. Said Rabbah to him, It is implied in the very Writ itself: Kumaz=here [Ka-an] is the place [Mekom] of unchastity [Zimmah].³⁴

And Moses was wroth with the officers of the host.³⁵  R. Nahman said in Rabbah b. Abbuha's name: Moses said to Israel: 'Maybe ye have returned to your first lapse [sin]?'³⁶  'There lacketh not one man of us,³⁷  they replied. 'If so,' he queried, 'Why an atonement?' 'Though we escaped from sin,' said they. 'yet we did not escape from meditating upon sin.' Straightway, 'and we have brought the Lord's offering'³⁸  The School of R. Ishmael taught: Why were the Israelites of that generation in need of atonement? Because

1. Concerning defilement by dead reptiles it is written, every utensil wherewith any work is done (Lev. XI, 32), and the meaning of 'utensil' is learnt from 'utensil' mentioned in connection with the dead, where ornaments are referred to. Tosaf explains the passage differently: But that … Midian, i.e., it treats of the spoil of Midian and has no bearing upon uncleanness at all? To which Raba replied that as 'utensil' in Lev. XI, 32 refers to uncleanness, so 'utensil' in Num. XXXI. 51 provides a teaching on uncleanness, notwithstanding that this does not appear so from the context.
2. The words are explained: … it is unclean as woven material though it is not woven. — By 'sack' a few plaited strands of goats' hair is meant.
3. Which are first spun.
4. Lev. XI, 32. — The reference is to defilement by dead reptiles (sherazim).
5. Which is usually worn by shepherds.
6. The band with which the saddle or housing of a horse is fastened to its belly. Others: the housing itself. It was made of goats' hair spun and woven.
7. 'Or' is an extension.
8. Used for measuring. These were of unspun plaited goats' hair.
9. Before it is susceptible to uncleanness.
10. Num. XXXI, 20. These become unclean through contact with the dead.
11. 'All' is an extension.
12. This is a parenthesis. A verse will be quoted to show that they are not included, but before that it is parenthetically argued that it is logical not to include them, so that no verse for their exclusion is required. But it is shown that logic does not suffice to exclude them, so that a verse is required.
13. I.e., shall we deduce a lenient ruling by analogy?
14. Surely not! Hence logic does not prove the exclusion of cords and ropes, and therefore a verse is necessary.
15. V. Glos.
16. Lev. XI, 32.
17. Num. XXXI, 51. E.V. garment.
18. Though an analogy between the two cannot be drawn, as shown, because the uncleanness of one is graver than that of the other, yet one can deduce equality of law through the gezerah shawah.
19. Providing it is spun and woven.
20. 'Or' being an extension.
21. For the susceptibility of a horse cover and a saddle band to uncleanness follows from the gezerah shawah, on the same lines as before.
22. V. p. 302, n. 11; the same applies here.
23. Uncleanness through a reptile ceases on the evening after the defiled object is subjected to ritual immersion, but uncleanness caused by the dead lasts seven days (v. Lev. XI, 32; Num. XIX, 11 seq.). Now, defilement until evening is extensive, in that it can be caused by many agencies, e.g., reptiles, the carcase of all animal (nebelah), semen, the touch of a zab and the touch of one who is himself unclean through the dead. Therefore it is logical that many objects too shall be susceptible to such uncleanness. But seven days' defilement is limited to the direct action of a corpse; hence it is probable that it does not extend to many objects either. Therefore the fact that what is made from the tail of a horse or cow is subject to defilement by reptiles is no warrant that it is also liable to defilement through the dead.
24. In a gezerah shawah the word used as a basis of deduction must be redundant (mufneh). Otherwise the deduction may be refuted if a point of known dissimilarity is found between the two subjects which are linked by the gezerah shawah. On this redundancy there are two views: (i) the redundancy is required in one passage only; (ii) the redundancy is necessary in both subjects. — There is a third view, that of R. Akiba, that no redundancy at all is required in order to make the deduction conclusive and incapable of being refuted.
25. Whereas the smallest portion of corpse to defile must be the size of an olive. In this matter defilement by a reptile is more stringent, and thus it may also be more stringent in the matter under discussion.
26. Lev. XXII, 4.
27. (Ibid. 5. Proximity indicates likeness in law.
28. Lev. XV, 17. Thus raiment and skin are defiled by semen, and therefore by reptiles too.
29. For the gezerah shawah.
30. I.e., in one of the two passages.
31. V. p. 656, n. 2.
32. Num. XXXI, 50.
33. Metargeminan, i.e., in the Targum, the Aramaic version of the Scriptures. The citation given here by R. Joseph is from the Targum ascribed to Onkelos the proselyte.
34. Treating Kumaz as an abbreviation.
35. Ibid. 14.
36. When they sinned with the daughters of Moab; v. Num. XXV.
37. Ibid. 49.
38. V. 50, to make atonement for their impure thoughts.

they gratified their eyes with lewdness. R. Shesheth said: Why does the Writ enumerate the outward ornaments with the inner?¹  To teach you: Whoever looks upon a woman's little finger is as though he gazed upon the pudenda.²

MISHNAH. A WOMAN MAY GO OUT WITH RIBBONS MADE OF HAIR,³  WHETHER THEY ARE OF HER OWN [HAIR] OR OF HER COMPANIONS, OR OF AN ANIMAL, AND WITH FRONTLETS AND WITH SARBITIN⁴  THAT ARE FASTENED TO HER. [SHE MAY GO OUT] WITH A HAIR-NET [KABUL] AND WITH A WIG⁵  INTO A COURTYARD; WITH WADDING IN HER EAR, WITH WADDING IN HER SANDALS,⁶  AND WITH THE CLOTH PREPARED FOR HER MENSTRUATION; WITH A PEPPERCORN, WITH A GLOBULE OF SALT AND ANYTHING THAT IS PLACED IN HER MOUTH,⁷  PROVIDING THAT SHE DOES NOT PUT IT IN HER MOUTH IN THE FIRST PLACE ON THE SABBATH, AND IF IT FAILS OUT,⁸  SHE MAY NOT PUT IT BACK. AS FOR AN ARTIFICIAL TOOTH, [OR] A GOLD TOOTH,⁹  — RABBI PERMITS BUT THE SAGES FORBID IT.

GEMARA. And it is necessary [to state all the cases].¹⁰  For if we were told about her own [hair], that might be because it is not ugly; but as for her companions', which is unbecoming.¹¹  I might say [that it is] not [permitted].¹²  While if we were informed about her companions', that might be because she is of her own kind; but an animal's, that is not of her own kind, I might say [that it is] not [permitted].¹³  Thus they are necessary.

It was taught: Providing that a young woman does not go out with an old woman's [hair], or an old woman with a young woman's.¹⁴  As for an old woman [not going out] with a young woman's hair, that is well, because it is an improvement for her; but [that] a young woman [may not go out] with an old woman's [hair]. why [state it], seeing that it is unsuitable for her?]¹⁵  — Because he teaches of an old woman's [going out] with a young woman's [hair], he also teaches of a young woman's [going out] with an old woman's hair.

WITH A HAIR-NET AND A WIG INTO A COURTYARD. Rab said: Whatever the Sages forbade to go out therewith into the street, one may not go out therewith into a courtyard,¹⁶  except a hair-net and a wig. R. 'Anani b. Sason said on the authority of R. Ishmael son of R. Jose: It is all like a hair-net. We learnt: WITH A HAIR-NET AND A WIG INTO A COURTYARD. As for Rab, it is well; but according to R. 'Anani b. Sason it is a difficulty? — On whose authority does R. 'Anani b. Sason say this? On that of R. Ishmael son of R. Jose! R. Ishmael son of R. Jose is a Tanna, and can disagree.¹⁷

Now, according to Rab, why do these differ? — Said 'Ulla, [They are permitted] lest she become repulsive to her husband.¹⁸  As it was taught: And she that is sick shall be in her impurity:¹⁹  the early Sages²⁰  ruled: That means that she must not rouge nor paint nor adorn herself in dyed garments; until R. Akiba came and taught: If so, you make her repulsive to her husband, with the result that he will divorce her! But what [then] is taught by, 'and she that is sick shall be it, her impurity'? She shall remain in her impurity until she enters Into water.²¹

Rab Judah said in Rab's name: Wherever the Sages forbade [aught] for appearances' sake, it is forbidden even In one's innermost chambers.²²

We learnt: Nor with a bell, even if it is plugged.²³  And it was elsewhere taught.²⁴  One may plug the bell around its [the animal's] neck and saunter with it in the courtyard?²⁵  — It is [a controversy of] Tannaim. For it was taught:

1. In this verse, according to the translation given above of 'agil and kumaz.
2. The first is where the finger-ring is worn, and since it is enumerated, it follows that even for looking upon that they needed atonement.
3. With which she dresses her hair.
4. V. supra 57b.
5. Lit., 'strange (false) curls'.
6. I.e., any soft substance to ease the foot.
7. Before the commencement of the Sabbath.
8. On the Sabbath.
9. Rashi regards these as one: an artificial tooth of gold.
10. Referring to ribbons of hair.
11. I.e., ribbons made of another woman's hair may not match her own.
12. She may be ridiculed and thereby tempted to remove it, and thus carry it in the street.
13. For there the disharmony is even more striking.
14. Young hair on old — e.g. black on grey — or vice versa is ugly, and so the wearer might remove it in the street.
15. No young woman would dream of wearing ribbons made from an old woman's hair. — The translation follows one interpretation given in Tosaf. Tosaf. offers another, which is based on a reversed order of the text.
16. Lest she forget herself and go out into the street too.
17. It is axiomatic that an amora cannot disagree with a Tanna, but another Tanna of course can. The Mishnah certainly disagrees with R. 'Anani b. Sason, but it does not matter, as he is supported by another Tanna.
18. Hence some ornaments must be permitted.
19. Lev. XV, 33. The reference is to a menstruant.
20. Lit., 'elders'.
21. I.e., until she has a ritual bath.
22. E.g., one must not lead on Sabbath a number of animals tied together, lest he be suspected of going to market with them (supra 54a). Accordingly he may not do so even in the utmost privacy.
23. V. supra 54b Mishnah.
24. Var. lec.: and it was taught thereon.
25. This refutes Rab, for though it may not be done publicly in the street, it may be done privately in one's courtyard.