Shabbat 86: Secretions of Semen and Ritual Purity; Mount Sinai and Days of the Week

We learn a new Mishna: How do we know that a woman who discharges semen on the third day after intercourse is ritually impure like one who touched semen (Leviticus 15:17)?  Because semen remains fit for insemination it can transmit impurity (Exodus 19:15) says that people should prepare for three days; do not approach a woman.   Further, one may wash a circumcision on the third day is taken from  Genesis 34:23, where on the third day they were in pain.  This is the same amount of time that a child is in danger from the circumcision.  Another allusion: we learn that one ties a scarlet strip of wool to the head of the scapegoat sent to Azazel because our sins will become white as snow.  And another one: smearing oil on one's body is like drinking and is similarly prohibited on Yom Kippur, whcch we learn about in Psalms 109:18: And it comes into his inward parts like water and like oil into his bones".  

The Gemara wants us to know which rabbis may have said which part of the Mishna is in accordance with which rabbi.  Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya taught that a woman who discharges semen at any point on the third day is ritually pure.  Rabbi Yishmael says that she is ritually impure.  He says that we have to tally the number of twelve hour periods.  If she discharges semen at the fifth or sixth twelve-hour period, she is called ritually impure.  Rabbi Akiva says that it is always five twelve-hour periods; if she had relations after part of the first period passed, she is given part of the sixth period to complete the full five periods so that sixty hours will have passed between intercourse and discharge.

The rabbis then discuss which other rabbis hold which positions.  They note that Moses came down from tMount Sinai in the morning to help us understand that people were supposed to separate in the early morning; not to engage in intercourse during the day.  But why was this necessary?  Rava notes that as long as the home was dark or darkened (a Talmud scholar could cover the light with his cloak to allow relations during the day)..

Some rabbis argue that the Torah was given to those who immersed themselves during the day.  In ideal circumstances, the entire community receives Torah at the same time after all have immersed.  Rav Sheshet notes that in the Torah, we learn that "and every garment, and every hide on which there is semen shall be immersed in water where it is impure until evening (Leviticus 15:17).  Semen is thought to be impure as long as it is still moist and if it is foul.

Rab Pappa wonders about the semen of a Jew in the "womb" of a gentile woman.  Does the semen become foul faster because their body temperatures are cooler (Jews have hotter body temperatures because we are eager to fulfill the mitzvot.  The rabbis ask other questions about different reasons that semen might become foul, like a longer corridor to the womb.

We learn that the Torah was given to us on Shabbat.  The New Moon was established on the first day of the week and the first day of the week He did not say anything to them because of their weariness.  A chart is provided to explain what happened at Mount Sinai according to days of the week.

Shabbat 85: Circle and Square Models to Plant Vegetables in Fields

The rabbis continue to discuss how fields should be treated regarding different crops.  They recommend different measures between seeds when they are planted.  Beyond that, they recommend that the same kind should be planed at east the width of a foot apart.  The rabbis also consider the shape of the land being planted.  

We are told about the many ways that crops can be planted within the given shape of the land. Within rows, circles, squares of different sizes can be allotted to one's field.  The rabbis even come up with a creative way to use as much space as possible in the field through imposing 'circles' upon square-shaped beds of at least six by six handbreadths.  Different rabbis believe that different numbers of vegetable varieties are permitted in each set field.

Shabbat 82: Constipation; Menstruation and Idolatry

Rav Huna spoke with his son Rabba, saying that his son's teacher Rav Chisda should be  followed.  Rabba said, "Why should I go to him?  When I go to him he sits me down and discusses mundane matters not related to Torah.  For example, he told me that we shouldn't sit down immediately in the bathroom and we shouldn't exert ourselves excessively because the rectum rests upon three teeth that are held in place by muscles.  The teeth of the rectum could dislocate and hurt the person.  Huna said "he is dealing with matters crucial to human life, and you say that this is mundane?!  All the more so you must learn from him.

The rabbis wonder about wiping with a stone or with grass. A baraita is quoted: one who wipes with something flammable, his lower teeth (which hold the intestines in place) fall out.  Thus only moist grasses can be used for wiping.  Rav Chisda says that if one does not defecate when one needs to do so, an evil spirit dominates him.  Ravina says that in such a case an odour of filth dominates him, as it was taught that one who needs to defecate and eats is comparable to an oven that was heated on top of its ashes, and that is the onset of an odour of filth.  

If one cannot defecate when needed, Rav Chisda says that he should stand and sit, stand and sit.  Rav Chanan from Neharde'a says that he should move to the sides and attempt to defecate in another place.  Rav Hamnuna says he should manipulate with a stone in that place.  The rabbis say he should divert his thoughts to other matters.  Rav Acha son of Rava says to Rav Ashi that when he diverts his thoughts he will make his constipation worse.  Rav Ashi says that he should divert his thoughts from other matters and only think about defecating.  Rav Yirmeya from Difti says that he saw a certain Arab who stood and sat, stood and sat, until it poured out of him like a pot.  

A new Mishna teaches  Rabbi Yehuda's words: one who carries out a shard of earthenware on Shabbat is liable if it is in a measure equal to that used to place between one pillar and another.  Rabbi Meir says that it should be the measure used to stoke a fire with it.  Rabbi Yosei says it is a measure equal to a quarter of a log.  Rabbi Meir says that there is no proof but there is a biblical allusion to back his opinion, in Isaiah (30:14), where it suggests that earthenware is significant if it is large enough to hold water.

We begin Perek IX with a new Mishna: Rabbi Akiva asks where we learn that idolatry transmits impurity imparted by carrying, even when the person carrying does not come into contact with it - like a menstruating woman does.  He looks to Isaiah (30:22) where defiling silver overlays and golden plating of statues and idols are cast away just like one would cast out a menstruating woman.   Both transmit impurity imparted by carrying.  

The Gemara notes that we learn in Massechet Avoda Zara that sharing a wall (that has fallen) with a house of idolatry requires that the wall be rebuilt four cubits into one's own land.  The dust and wood from that destroyed wall will spread impurity like creeping animals.  We are reminded again that menstruating women are cast aside, made "foreign to you like a stranger".  

The rabbis try to make sense of conflicting opinions regarding menstruating women, idolatry, and being a zav.  We learn that in some ways each are like the other, but in other ways they are different.  Some of these cross over.  It is noted that a menstruating woman does not have the capacity to transmit impurity through the limbs; it is unknown if this is the same for idolatry.

Shabbat 81: Wiping With Stones/Shards on Shabbat

A new Mishna teaches that a bone should be smaller than a spoon if it is carried out on Shabbat.  Rabbi Yehuda says that it is actually the size of a key.  What about carrying out glass?  Should it be equal to the size of a sharpened stick used by weavers to scrape and smooth the top of a bobbin?  What about a pebble or a stone?  It should be equal to that which is used to throw at a bird to chase it away.  Rabbi Elzzar bar Ya'akov says Equivalent to that which is used to throw at an animal, which would be larger.

The rabbis relatively quickly move toward questioning the size of stones that may be moved on Shabbat for wiping in the bathroom.  Rabbi Yosei says an olive-bulk, a nut-bulk, and an egg-bulk.  But how would they be weighed?  They would be counted and measured in advance; one would take a handful of stones.  Rabbi Shimon, son of Rabbi Yosei, says that the stones need not be measured at all before the y are taken.

Should they be sharpened?  Should they be used to dislodge faeces? Should they just be used in ways different from weekday use?  If the bathroom is in a fixed place, can a pile of stones be left there for later use?  Rav Sheshet says that if the stone has an indication on it that it has already been used in the bathroom, one may move it for that purpose on Shabbat (at any size). 

The Gemara teaches that ten things bring on hemorrhoids: eating the leaves of bulrushes, grape leaves, tendrils of grapevines, the palate and tongue of an animal, a smooth part of an animal with protrusions, without salt, the spine of a fish, a salty fish that is not fully cooked, wine dregs, one who cleans himself with lime and clay (which make earthenware) and one who cleaned himself that another person has already used.  Staying too long in the bathroom, using a stone still moist from another's use and the same side of that stone already used are also discouraged.  These last points refer to stones that belong to others, and not one's own wiping stone.  If it rains on the stone, Rav Yosef says that if an indication on them is apparent it is permitted since it is clear that it was intended for use in the bathroom.

Rabba bar Rav Sheila raised a dilemma before Rav Chisda: What is the halacha regarding taking those stones up with him to the roof if the bathroom is on the roof?  Is it prohibited because of the exertion involved?  Rav Chisda says that it is permitted because great is human dignity as it overrides a prohibition in the Torah.  The Gemara speak of Mareimar who sat and stated this halacha.  Ravina argued based on a baraita  where Rabbi Eliezer says a person may take a wood chip only from the animal's trough, already designated for the the animals' use but not from wood on the ground which is set- aside. The Gemara rejects this, say ing "How can you compare? There a person determines the place for his meal.  He should have prepared toothpick in advance. A bathroom has to be found where it can be found.

Rav Huna asks if it is prohibited to defecate in a plowed field on Shabbat.  Why on Shabbat based on hurting the planting?  That would be the same any day.  Instead it is because he might clean himself with a clod of earth that have grown grasses.  Reish Lakish said that it is permitted to wipe with a stone upon which grasses have grown even though the grasses with be detached as a result.  If we detach grass on Shabbat, even by accident, we are liable to bring a sin-offering.  Instead we should take a clod of earth from a high place (top of a pile) and throw it to a low place, where he would be liable due to Rabba's point: if one had a hole and filled it in the house he is liable due to the prohibited labour of building.  In the field, he is liable due to plowing.

Reish Lakish noted that we can wipe with a stone that has had grasses grow on top of it.  Rav Pappi says that thus we are permitted to carry this perforated flowerpot on Shabbat.  Rav Kahana strongly objects, saying IF they said that it is okay to carry a stone with weeds on it for a purpose, will they say it is permitted for no purpose?  Abaye said since the topic of a perforated pot has begun, let's talk about that.  If it had been placed on the ground and one lifted it and placed i on top of pegs on Shabbat, he is liable for detaching (the roots from the ground).  If placed on the ground, one is liable for planting. 

Rabbi Yochanan says it is prohibited to wipe with an earthenware shard on Shabbat.  The Gemara asks about danger, but if so it should always be prohibited.  Instead it is because that action invites witchcraft - which also should not be practiced on weekdays.  Instead the concern must be that hairs will be removed with the shard.  But that would be unintentional and thus permitted.  Rav Natan bar Oshaya said to those who raised the question: A great man said something, let us find a reason for it.  He says that Rabbi Yochanan means that it is not necessary to prohibit wiping with a shard on a weekday because one has the option of using a stone.  On  Shabbat, the shard has the status of a utensil and is not set-aside, thus it is preferable to a stone which is set-aside.  Thus it is prohibited.

Rava taught that Rabbi Yochanan ruled this is prohibited becasue of the removal of hairs, which clashes with other things Rabbi Yochanan has said.  He said that it is forbidden to wipe with an earthenware shard on Shabbat, thus he believes that an unintentional act is prohibited.  He stated a principale: The halacha is ruled in accordance with an unattributed mishna.  We learned in another Mishna that a nazirite may wash his hair on a weeday with sand and natron and separate it with his fingers, but he may not comb it, which would pull out some hair.  The unintentional act of removing hair while shampooing is permitted.  Thus it is in accordance with the explanation of Rav Natan bar Oshaya.

The Gemara then asks about the witchcraft is regarding wiping with an earthenware shard.  The Gemara explains that Rav Chisda and Rabba bar Rav Huna were on a boat and a matron (matronita) said, "Let me sit with you", and they did not let her sit.  She said something and stopped the boat. They said something, the Holy Name, and freed it.  She said to them, What will I do to you to let me hurt you with witchcratf, for you dno't clearn yourselves with earthenware shards and you do not kill lice on your clothing, and you do not pull out a vegetable and eat it before you untie the bundle that was tied by the gardener?  Through this we know that all of these acts carry with them the danger of witchcraft.

Shabbat 80: Carrying Lime as a Depilatory

The rabbis consider the prohibition of carrying enough ink to write two letters.  That ink might be dried, in the inkwell, and the rabbis cannot decide how to measure liability when only one letter can be written.

Rava compares this to one who carries out a half of a dried fig and places it in different domains, thecarries out another half and places it.  It is as if a dog snatched or burned the first half.  They are not placed together but the carrier is exempt.  As long as the second half-fig did not come to rest and were no less than three handbreadths apart are considered to be attached.  Rava explains that the definition of domain for Shabbat is like the definition of domain for gettin, bills of divorce: two areas separated by a beam are not considered one domain.

Blue eye shadow enough for only one eye is explained by Rav Huna.  Because modest women cover their faces with a veil.  They would not wear more than that much eye shadow.  The rabbis discuss both wax, glue, tar and sulphur as well.  They consider how much plaster would be required to plaster the cracks in the small tripod of a small stove - not much plaster.  

When carrying out lime, one should not bring out more than what is used to spread as a depilatory on the smallest of girls.  Or perhaps the amount used to soften and pamper the finger of the smallest of girls.  Or, perhaps, girls who had physically matured before the age of 12 and women who used it for cosmetic purposes.  The poor would use lime, the wealthy would  use fine flour , and the daughters of kings would use shemen hamor, olive oil taken from an olive not yet reached a third of its growth. 

We are told of Rav Beivai who smeared his daughter regularly limb by limb and she was so beautiful that he received four hundred zuz in gifts beyond her dowry.  Another man in that neighbourhood had a daughter and he smeared her all at once and she died.  He blamed Rav Beivai.  Rav Nachman said that Rav Beivai drank beer and so the lime was required.  But those who do not drink beer do not require to be smeared with lime.

The rabbis wonder about smearing lime on the kilkul, temples, and andifi, beneath the temples of girls and women.  A story is told about a colleague of Rabbi Nechemya who was stung by a hornet on his forehead and died.  The forehead was called his andifi.  From this we learn that oil is spread on the forehead not just for hair removal but for softening and soothing the skin.

We learn in a new Mishna that Rabbi Akiva teaches: one is liable for carrying out earth on Shabbat is equal to the seal of large sacks.  The rabbis believe that it is the size of the seal of letters.  For manure and fine sand, Akiva says the amount should be less than what is used to fertilize on stalk of cabbage.  The rabbis say it is enough to fertilize a leek.  Coarse sand is the amount used to put on a full spoon of plaster.  For carrying out a reed, we shouldn't carry out more than what is used to make a quill.  If the read is thicker than that used for writing or if it was fragmented, it must be smaller than that which is used to cook an egg that is already beaten and placed in a stew pot.  It is noted that we do not refer to an egg bulk on Shabbat but to a piece of the egg the size of a fig bulk.

Shabbat 79: Liability for Carrying Out Hides and Parchment

The Gemara continues its examination about carrying out hides on Shabbat.  The rabbis attempt to compare amounts with those that are permitted regarding carrying other items, including promissory notes, receipts, wool, herbs that are soaked in water and ready to use as dyes, herbs not soaked yet for dyes, seeds of garden plants before they have been sowed, fertilizer for one leek, waste water used to knead clay, and more.

We learn that there are three hides, and each is a different size used for different purposes.  One not tanned at all must be smaller than something used to wrap a small shekel weight.  A hide that has been salted must be smaller than that what is used to make an amulet.  One that has been salted and treated with flour can be the size of a get, a bill of divorce.

Turning their attention to limitations on carrying parchment into the public domain on Shabbat.  We learned that one is liable for carrying that equivalent to that which is used to write the shortest part in the phylacteries, the Shema.  But hadn't we learned that we are liable for carrying out parchment and dokhsostos, part of the hide that is less malleable, likely with the hair of the animal on it, is the size of a mezuzah scroll.  The rabbis argue about where one must write on the parchment and on the dokhsostos.

The rabbis return to the Mishna to discuss liability for carrying out ink.  

Shabbat 78: Equivalencies When Measuring Amounts of Items Forbidden to be Carried

Masechet Shabbat 77 includes a discussion of animals and their weaknesses.

The Gemara discusses how much water can be carried out on Shabbat without liability.  Enough to wash one's eyes?  Should it be the same as that for wine or for milk?  Would we consider whether this water is used for drinking or for healing purposes?  If that last consideration is true, and water is more commonly used for drinking and less frequently for healing, should there be stringencies placed upon its use for healing?  In the Galilee, we learn, wine is the common drink.  Water is commonly used to heal eyes.  

The rabbis turn their attention to our Mishna's commentary on amounts of liquids.  Liability for carrying out blood and all types of liquids on Shabbat is said to be a quarter of a log.  The rabbis consider where that blood came from and why it might be carried.  As an aside, we learn that a teacher might ask his pupil to prepare a place for him to eat.  If the student carries out significant things in his effort to prepare the table, he is not liable because he is following the directions of his teacher.

A new Mishna teaches that One who carries out a rope is liable in a measure equal to that which is used to make an ear-shaped handle for a basket.  The measure for carrying out reed grass is equal to that of a loop for hanging a sifter or a sieve.  Rabbi Yehuda says that it is equal to the measurer of a shoe for a child, because the reed is used to measure the foot.  The measure for carrying out paper is equal to that which is used to write a tax receipt.  But carrying out a tax receipt on Shabbat is of course no permitted. Many more limits are described including:

• erased paper - as much as it takes to wrap around a small jar of perfume
• animal hide - an amulet
• carrying dochsostos, layer of hide - what is used to write a mezuza
• parchment - what is used to write the shortest portion in the phylacteries, that of Shema Yisrael
• ink- how much it takes to write two letters
• blue eye shadow - enough to paint one eye blue
• glue - enough to place on the top of a board to catch birds
• tar/sulphur - sealing a hole in a vessel and making a hole n that seal
• wax- sealing the opening of a small hole
• crushed earthenware - using it to make an opening for the bellows for a gold refiners' crucible (Rabbi Yehuda says  to make a small tripod for that crucible)
• bran - to place on the hole of a gold refiners' crucible
• lime - spread depilatory on the smallest of girls (Rabbi Yehuda says what is used to spread on the hair that grows of the temple so that it will lie flat.  Rabbi Nechemya says enough to spread on the temple to remove fine hairs)

So how much rope does it take to form an ear-shaped handle for a basket? The rabbis discuss the amount of ink that it might take to write two letters.  They admit that this is almost too small to measure.  However, regarding the tax receipt, the rabbis enter a conversation about senior and junior tax collectors.  They get into the question of holding tax notes and promissory notes on Shabbat to be used as paper.  This larger discussion about holding a one who says that they have made payment but have not yet done so will be discussed at length in other sections of the Talmud.  

Shabbat 76: How Much Food Creates Liability for Carrying on Shabbat?

We begin a new Mishna about which substances are significant and how they are stored.  One who carries out straw in a measure that is the same as a cow's mouthful is liable.  The measure that tells us whether or not one is liable for etza is equivalent to a camel's mouthful.  Liability for ears of grain is equal to a lamb's mouthful.  Liability for grass is equivalent to a goat's mouthful.  Moist and ready to eat garlic leaves and onion leaves are liable if they are a dried fig bulk.  If the leaves are dry, they are liable at a goat's mouthful.  None of these can join together because they are all measured differently.

The Gemara begins with a discussion about how much a mouthful might be for a cow, for a camel.  What those animals might eat; how those substances might be measured.Rabbi Yosei bar Chanina says that substances that have a more lenient legal status and have a greater measure for liability do not join together with substances whose legal status is more stringent and whose measure for liability is smaller.  

The Gemara notes that a garment must be at least three by three handbreadths to become a primary source of ritual impurity by a zav. but the sack made of goats' hair must be four by four, the animal hide must be five by five, and a mat must be six by six.  They can join together to become ritually impure as a ritual imparted to a seat for a zav.    Rava says that these materials can be piled together as a merchant tries to sell them and for carrying out on Shabbat.

Another new Mishna: One who carries out a measure of foods fit for human consumption equal to a dried fig bulk into a domain where carrying is prohibited on Shabbat is liable.  These foods join together because they are equal in their measures.  It is calculated without their shells seeds, stems, bran, and coarse bran.  Rabbi Yehuda notes that the shells of lentils are included because they are cooked and eaten together.

We move into Perek VIII.  A third new Mishna teaches that one who carries out undiluted wine from a private to public domain or vice versa is liable only for a measure equal to the wine typically diluted in a cup.  The measure that is liable for carrying out milk is equal to that which is swallowed in one gulp.  For honey, it is equal to that which is used to place on a sore that was caused by chafing.  Liability for carrying oil is equal to that used to spread on a small limb.  For water, it is the amount used to rub and spread on an eye bandage.  All other liquids are liable if they measure a quarter of a log.  The measure determining liability for carrying out all waste water is a quarter of a log as well.  These measures were only stated regarding those who store them.  Storing demonstrates that one considers the liquids significant, and we are only liable for object that we consider to be significant to us.  

The Gemara says that a Tosefta asks, what the exact measures are regarding a significant cup of wine if that wine is diluted with water? It is a cup of blessing.  Rav Nachman says that Rabba bar Avuh says that a cup of blessing must have a quarter of a quarter of a log of undiluted wine in it so that one will dilute it with water and the cup will contain a quarter of a lg.  Thus the ratio of dilution is typically three parts water to one part wine.  

Shabbat 75: Listening to a Magosh, Storing Things Like Menstrual Blood

The rabbis consider the prohibition against tearing and sewing on Shabbat.  They almost immediately note that anyone who listens to the words of a magosh, a magi or sorcerer who is a a Persian priest might be punished - or, perhaps, they might be punished only if the learning is acted upon.  It was important for members of the Sanhedrin to know about constellations, astronomical seasons and the practices of the magi in case this knowledge should be required in a case.

Regarding trapping deer and breaking the shell of a chilazon for its dye, the rabbis discuss details of these prohibited actions.  Can the shell be broken before or after the chilazon has been killed?  Leaving the chilazon alive longer will allow the dye to become clearer.  Is one liable because one is aware of the law, because one did not intend to to take a life, or because one took a life with or without intention?

The rabbis discuss writing and erasing.  We are prohibited to write two letters on Shabbat.  What if we wrote one large letter even though there is room to write two letters in that place?  What about one who who erases one large letter and in its space there is room to write two?  Usually we are more stringent regarding constructive acts, but the destructive act of erasing is more stringent. 

We learn a new Mishna at the end of today's daf.  It teaches that the rabbis stated an additional principle regarding the halachot of Shabbat: one is liable to bring a sin offering for anything fit to store for future use, typically stored, and carried out into a prohibited domain on Shabbat.  Storing the item demonstrates that the item is significant, even if it is not significant to others.

The Gemara notes that this would exclude the blood of a menstruating woman and the wood of an ashera, a tree designated for idolatry.  It is noted that menstrual blood might be stored to feed to the cat.  The ashera is unfit as it should be destroyed by Torah law.  

Shabbat 74: Numbers of Sin Offerings for Prohibited Actions on Shabbat

When discussing the list of forty-less-one prohibitions of Shabbat, the rabbis consider adding pounding (regarding wheat).  But prohibitions cannot be added unless others are taken away.  The rabbis consider selecting food to be eaten immediately, which is permitted, or setting aside food for later, which is not.  The selection of food by utensils or from trays is also considered.

The rabbis speak about removing waste from food.  One might select lupines (a vegetable) for boiling, because they must be boiled seven times to be edible.  But one is not permitted to remove one part of the lupine from the rest, for the lupines are sweetened by that part.  One can be punished for chopping food too finely for preparation later, chopping wood for its sawdust, or softening/ hardening an object in an oven as if one were cooking.  One cannot make an earthenware vessel, oven, barrel or any vessel with a fixed location.  These actions would transgress the prohibitions on grinding, cutting, cooking, baking, kneading, and/or building.  

Creating an earthenware barrel on Shabbat would make one liable to bring seven sin-offerings:

• crumbling lumps of dirt: grinding
• selecting stones from the dirt
• kneading the mortar
• cutting the mortar into pieces of the right size
• building the mold
• kindling the fire
• firing the vessel: baking
• Finishing the job would involve smoothing

Abaye notes that one who creates a vessel from reeds on Shabbat is liable to bring eleven sin offerings for the sins of reaping, planting, gathering, selecting, smoothing, cutting, grinding, stretching the warp, constructing two meshes, weaving and overall building.  Sewing the mouth of the receptacle adds two more sin-offerings because of sewing and tying.

The rabbis go on to discuss ways that one might prohibit the laws of Shabbat regarding sheep and tying.  They consider what unusual ways one might perform these actions, including bleaching one's sheep's wool while on the sheep, and tying in order to encamp permanently as described in Numbers (9:18).  

Shabbat 73: The Fourty-Less-One Categories of Prohibited Labour on Shabbat

The discussion about intentional/unintentional transgression continues.  Throwing without intention  to break Shabbat halacha might be exempted if the person throwing is unaware that the throw has likely gone four cubits into the public domain.  What if the intention was to throw only two cubits?  Rabbi Yochanan says that one has sinned unintentionally even if one only was unaware that the consequence of their sin was karet.  Rabbi Shimon ben Lakeish (Reish Lakish) says that one is only unwitting if they do not know about their prohibition and about the punishment of karet.  

A new Mishna teaches us the forty-less-one categories of labour that are prohibited on Shabbat.  They are grouped by their function:

• one who sows, plows, reaps, gathers sheaves into a pile, threshes removing kernels from the husk, one who winnows threshed grain in the wind, one who selects the inedible waste from the edible, one who grinds, one who sifts the flour in a sieve, one who kneads dough, one who bakes

• one who shears wool, whitens it, combs the fleece and straightens it, dyes it, spins the wool, stretches the threads of the warp in the loom, constructs two meshes, ties the threads of the warp to the base of the loom, wears two threads, severs two threads for constructive purposes, ties a knot, unties a knot, sews two stitches with a needle, tears a fabric in order to sew two stitches

• one who traps a deer or any living creature, slaughters it, flays it, salts its hide as part of the tanning process, tans its hide, smooths it, removes hair and veins, cuts it into measured parts

• one who writes two letters, erases in order to write two letters

• one who builds a structures, dismantles it

• one who extinguishes a fire, kindles a fire

• one who strikes a blow with a hammer to complete the production of a vessel, says Rabbi Chananel

• one who carries out an object from domain to domain

Rabbi Yochanan says that we need this tally to teach that when one performs all of the prohibited labours in the course of any lapse of awareness (during which one also was unaware of the prohibition involved), one is liable for each one.  The rabbis discuss which actions are done first and second in different places.  Sowing then plowing?  Plowing then sowing?  Does planting count as its own category of prohibited labour?  

Sometimes several actions are included in one category.  For example, Rabbi Abba says that one who digs a hole on Shabbat because one needs the dirt is exempt for the act.  This principle is dependent on whether or not a purpose is constructive or destructive.  The act of digging mars the surface of the ground, a destructive act, and thus one is exempt.

We are also reminded that performing an action in an atypical manner on Shabbat is permitted.  

Shabbat 72: Intentional Sins on Shabbat, Transgressing Other Mitzvot, and Offerings

In discussing the option of single punishments for multiple sins, we are introduced to Rav Dimi's opinion.  Ulla says that if one has sexual relations with a designated maidservant five times, he is only liable to bring one guilt-offering even if he became aware of his transgression between each relation.    Rav Hamnuna objects. He says that one could knowingly wait until having relations five times before bringing an offering. Ulla says that one referred to an action that was performed after a guilt offering had been designated.  One must set aside one guilt offering for each wrongdoing.

Ravi Dimi came to Bavli from Eretz Yisrael.  He shared that a definite guilt-offering requires on to know that he has sinner before sinning.  Abaye disagrees, saying that sin-offerings require prior knowledge but that Rabbi Yochanan and Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish disagree about whether or not awareness of a transgression is required. We are told that Rav Dimi was silent and did not repond.  Abaye says, "Perhaps you said your statement regarding an act that one commits after designating an animal as a guilt-offering but wants to attain atonement for with that same designated sacrifice.  This is what Rav Hamnuna says.  Rav Dimi then remembers and agrees with Abaye.

Ravin came from Eretz Yisrael to Bavli and said about guilt offerings that everyone agrees that a designated maidservant twice, and there is a dispute regarding a designated maidservant.  The Gemara notes that in this case one is liable to bring only one guilt-offering, even for many acts of cohabitation, which is in line with the opinion of Ulla.  The other statement about designating an animal for a guilt-offering is agreeing with the opinion of Rav Hamnuna. A definite guilt-offering requires prior knowledge of definite sins.

We learn that the amora'im disagreed regarding a specific case.  One who intended to lift a plant detached from the ground on Shabbat and accidentally severed a plant still attached to the ground.  This is not actually reaping and one is exempt from bringing a sin-offering for that act.  The intention is what matters.  A stricture on Shabbat is greater than other strictures.  In other mitzvot, if the stricture is greater than that regarding Shabbat,  one who performs an act unwittingly without intent is liable.  This is not the case regarding Shabbat. 

The rabbis speak about unintentional transgressions, like bowing to an idol when one thought it was a synagogue.  There is no transgression at all here. Rava and Rav Nachman consider whether one might be liable to bring one or two sin-offerings.  Rava did not even consider the possibility of exempting this transgressor from bringing sin-offering.

Shabbat 71: How the Timing of Our Transgressions Affect Atonement

Very briefly:

Our daf begins with a discussion about different transgressions on Shabbat and their punishments.  Grinding, drawing and eating forbidden fats are used as examples.  Much of the daf focuses on how much one must transgress in order to bring an offering as punishment/consequence.  If one eats a half an olive bulk unwittingly and then another one unwittingly within a certain amount of time, is one offering required or more than one required? 

Rabbi Yochanan and Reish Lakish argue about this based on their interpretations of verses in Leviticus.  Yochanan quotes verse 4:26 where we learn that for each sin one will bring a separate offering.  Reish Lakish considers Leviticus 4:28, where a priest makes expiation on another's behalf, and the sin shall be forgiven.  Reish Lakish believes this means that one sin-offering can atone for multiple sins.  

Shabbat 69: Unwitting Transgressions on Shabbat, What to Do When We Don't Know What Day it is

Should a person who unwittingly sins be punished with karet, cutting off their soul from their people?  Rabbi Yochanan says that one was unwitting regarding the fact that the punishment for the transgression is karet, even though one was aware of the transgressions and it was performed intentionally anyhow.  Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish, Reish Lakish ,says that the rabbis say one was unwitting until one was unintentional regarding both prohibition and karet.  

Shabbat has forty-less-one categories of prohibited labours.  Rabbi Yochanan explains that this teaches that if one performs all of the prohibited labours in the course of one lapse of awareness, one is liable for every single prohibition, or thirty-nine offerings.  This could only be possible if some of the actions were done without intention.

Rabbi Yochanan further explores the different ways that someone might not not be aware of one's prohibited behaviours.  Abaye looks at adding to Rabbi Yochanan's words, he is unable to add more useful information.  The Gemara says that since the obligation to bring a n offering regarding a broken oath is a novel halacha - throughout the entire Torah there is no punishment where one is liable to bring an offering and for whose intentional violation is not punishable by karet - one might always be liable to bring the offering.  Abaye notes that if someone know that taking their false oath is prohibited but they do not know whether or not one is liable to bring an offering for swearing falsely, one is liable to bring an offering for an unwitting transgression.  The Gemara rejects this; one is thought to have performed the transgression unwittingly.

It is noted that one who eats teruma and is not a priest is liable to death at the hand of heaven.  This is called "Death stands in place of karet".  Our daf also mentions one is liable to add a payment of one-fifth the value of teruma for eating it unwittingly if one is unwitting regarding its prohibition.

If a person were walking or in the desert and does not know which day is Shabbat, one should count six days from the day that one lost track and then serve a day as Shabbat.  Should Shabbat be occurred first, or should one wait six days and then observe Shabbat.  The rabbis consider what a person should do if they had a sense of which day they might have lost track of time.  

Shabbat 68: Forgetting Shabbat, Intention and Consequences

Our Mishna taught the "significant principle" regarding forgetting Shabbat.  The Gemara begins by questioning what a significant principle might be.  First, it might be that we learn another less significant principal.  Second, the principal might contain subcategories.  The rabbis discuss violations of the halachot of pe'a and tithing to introduce the second principle: anything that is food and is protected and grows from the ground is obligated in tithes.  Thus figs and vegetables are obligated in tithes more than the scope of those obligated in pe'a.  

The rabbis discuss who could actually forget Shabbat.  If we are talking about one who was taken captive among gentiles and a convert who converted to Judaism among gentiles, how could that person "forget" what they did not know?  Are we expected to understand the essence of Shabbat without having been taught about this special day?  Or are we talking about a person who once knew about Shabbat but then forgot the halachot?  

Next, the Gemara considers those who knew that the day was Shabbat but forgot some of the halachot.  One who performs many labours on multiple Shabbatot is liable for each labour. Using other situations involving Munbaz, the rabbis consider the implications about liability when actions might be done when the laws have been forgotten compared with when there was an intentional transgression.  

The issue here is one that is familiar to the rabbis - and familiar to us in modern civil law. How much does intention matter when we are considering punishment for a transgression?  

Shabbat 67: Medical Remedies, Ways of the Amorite, Punishments for Transgressions on Shabbat

Today's daf has rabbis other than Abaye and his mother teaching us about remedies for different ailments.  There are rituals to address tertian fevers which comes ever three days, burning fevers, boils, wounds, demons, and those particular demons of the bathroom.  Each remedy includes reciting verses and performing ritualistic actions.  We learn that princes, which may refer to all of the sons of Israel, may walk to the bathrooms with bells sewn into their clothing.  

A new Mishna teaches Rabbi Meir's opinion that we may go out on Shabbat with a locust egg, a fox tooth, and a nail from the crucified for the purpose of healing.  The rabbis prohibit these remedies at all times because they are the ways of the Amorites.  The Gemara teaches that the locust egg is used to cure earaches and fox teeth are used for sleep.  The tooth of a love fox will help one wake up and the tooth of a dead fox will one who does not sleep enough.  The nail can cure infection.  The Gemara notes that Abaye and Rava both agree that anything that helps to heal is not subject to the prohibition against following the ways of the Amorite.   We end this conversation with rituals addressing sick trees and people with bones stuck in their throats.

The Gamara continues to examine ways of the Amorite.  Many things contain an element of their ways.  One of those is a woman who dances and counts the chicks until she reaches the number of seventy-one chick so that they don't die.  Another is a woman who dances to ensure that the kutach and silences bystanders to ensure that lentils will cook properly and who screams to ensure that pearl barley cooks properly all contain an element of the ways of the Amorite.  Women who urinate in front of their pots so that it will cook quickly is also mimicking the Amorites.  

Finally, as we begin Perek VII, we learn a new Mishna.  It begins with a principal regarding the halachot of Shabbat: one who forgets the essence of Shabbat and performs numerous prohibited labours on multiple Shabbatot is liable to bring only one sin-offering for all of those transgressions.  One who knows the essence of Shabbat but forgets the day of the week is liable to bering a sin-offering for each Shabbat where one has transgressed.  One who is aware that the day is Shabbat but forgets that certain labours are prohibited and performs many of them on may Shabbatot is liable to bring a sin-offering for each primary category of labour performed.  If one performs numerous prohibited labours within one single category of labour, one is liable to bring only one sin-offering.

Shabbat 66: Amputees, Abaye's Mother, Medicines

A new Mishna: a person with an amputated leg may go out on Shabbat with their wooden leg.  Rabbi Emir says that it has the legal status of a shoe.  Rabbi Yosei prohibits this as he does not see it having the legal status of a shoe.  If the leg has a space for pads, it assumes the status of a wooden vessel and can become ritually impure.  If one has their feet amputated, and they are zavs, they are subject to ritual impurity imparted by treading.  Those supports are vessels designated for treading.  They may go out on Shabbat and enter the Temple courtyard. 

If one cannot walk at all and sits in a chair propelled by one's hands, the chair and supports are subject to ritual impurity imparted by treading.  They may not go out on Shabbat nor enter the Temple courtyard with those supports.  We are told that loketamin, either wooden toy donkeys. or stilts to avoid mud, or masks, are ritually pure because they are not vessels and thus cannot become ritually impure. One may not go out with them on Shabbat.

In their discussion about going out with a wooden leg, the rabbis consider the chalitza ritual.  The childless widow may take off her brother-in-law's right or left sandal, whether it is wooden or belongs to someone else, and the ritual is still valid.  This is not enough to convince the rabbis that an amputee is permitted to be out on Shabbat with a wooden leg.  We also learn that a walking stick of any kind is ritually pure and incapable of becoming ritually impure.  It does not hold all of one's weight and thus it is not prohibited by treading.

A second new Mishna teaches that young boys may go out on Shabbat with knots as a folk remedy and princes with bells.  Any person is permitted to go out on Shabbat with those objects, but the Sages spoke about present day situations that were of concern. 

Abaye speaks about his mother, who was actually his foster mother, teaching him the healing properties of madder, some sort of medicinal plant, were used for healing or for protection from sorcery.  The Gemara wonders why boys were mentioned when girls or adults could use this tool.  And they ask about the knots, as well.  Perhaps a son who longs for his father wears a strap from the father's right shoe and ties it onto the boy's left arm as a talisman to address those longings. Our commentary teaches that young boys spend more time with their fathers.  Or, perhaps, this refers to boys at the age of maturity who have recently lost their fathers.

Other medicinal practices are permitted on Shabbat as well. These include putting a cup that had boiling water in it on one's navel, and smearing oil and salt on oneself.  Oil and salt wear spread on one's palms and soles with ritualistic words to cause sobriety.  It is permitted to tightly bandage the neck of a person whose vertebrae was dislocated on Shabbat.  It is permitted to tightly swaddle a baby to align any limbs that were dislocated in birth. 

Abaye says more about his mother's teachings.  She said that all incantations that are repeated are intoned using the name of the mother of the one requiring the incantation, and all knots tied for the purpose of healing are tied on the left.  She also said that each incantation must be said a specific number of times.  If there is no number specified in advance, they should be recited forty-one times. 

The Sages teach that a preservation stone , which prevents miscarriage, may be worn out on Shabbat.  It applies to all women whether or not she has miscarried in the past.  Another stone of the same weight may also be used and worn in the public domain. 

More from Abaye's mother, who said that a pale (newly minted) dinar should be taken to the salt pools and weighs against salt, and bind the slat to the opening of the neckline of one's garment with a thread made of hair to resolve a one-day fever.   If this doesn't work, one should sit at a crosssroad and take an ant carrying something, put it in a copper tube, and close it with lead, seal it with sixty seals, shake it , lift it, and say to it "Your burden is upon me and my burden is upon you."  One might also say that both burdens are upon the ant just in case someone else already put their burden on this ant. 

Finally, if that remedy doesn't work, one should take a new jug to the river and say "River, river, lend me a jug of water for a guest who happened to come to me."  Then one should turn it around one's head seven times, pour out the water behind them, and say "River, river, take back the water that you gave me because the guest who happened to come to me came on its day and left on its day."

Shabbat 65: A Few Words About Lesbianism

Some of what we learn today includes:

• the rabbis disagree about whether or not we can dry our clothes by laying them out in the sun (unusual manner) where people cannot see and/or assume that we actually washed them on Shabbat
• a woman can go out with a cloth in her ear or her sandal when they will not be removed/carried
• women can go out with cloths between her legs when menstruating whether or not it is tied because it is understood that it will not fall
• pepper is held in the mouth to prevent odour; salt treats a toothache
• ginger or cinnamon may be held in the mouth on Shabbat
• the rabbis disagree about whether or not a woman can go out with a gold tooth but most agree a silver tooth is permitted
• anything that makes a woman unappealing when removed should not be removed
• using a bundle of fragrant herbs/ a flask of balsam oil is not prohibited for it is used to mask foul odour and it will not be removed and carried to show others
• anything worn beneath a hair net is permitted because a woman will not uncover her hair to show an ornament
• anything worn over a net, including an ornamental hat, cannot be worn out because she might remove and carry it

A new Mishna teaches us that a young girl may go out with a sela coin tied onto a wound on her foot.  As well, young girls may go out with strings and wood chips in the holes in their ears.  Ears were pierced but not adorned with earrings until later.  Jewish women in Arab countries were permitted to go out with their faces veiled.  Jewish women in Media may go out with cloaks fastened with stones.  Any person anywhere was permitted to go out on Shabbat clothed in that way, but the Sages spoke in the present to address current questions.  They said that a woman may fasten her cloak on a stone by inserting a small stone, a nut or a coin, and wrapping her cloak around it like a button. This was permitted on Shabbat unless it was done in advance of Shabbat.

The Gemara notes that the rust from copper might help with healing.  Regarding strings in their nose ring holes, in is notes that Shmuel's father did not allow his daughters to do this.  He also did not allow them to lie next to each other and he made ritual baths for them in Nisan and mats in the Euphrates River in Tishrei.  This would allow them to immerse without getting dirty.  

Why no strings?  Perhaps because they were made of beautiful colours and could be removed to show to each other.  Why no lying beside each other?  Rav Huna sad that Women who rub against one another are disqualified from marrying into the priesthood as they are categorized as zonot, prostitutes.  The Gemara rejects this and suggests that they should not become accustomed to sleeping with another person which could stimulate sexual desire.  Here is proof that while there is no Torah law that explicitly prohibits lesbian acts, some rabbis are eager to discourage any lesbian behaviours.  Interestingly, Rav Huna and his sun tried to equate these behaviours to zenut, sexual promiscuity, their opinions were rejected.

Shabbat 64: Women and Men's Ornaments Permitted in the Courtyard on Shabbat

The Gemara continues to discuss our last Mishna, introduced in daf 63.  It taught that men cannot go out with a sword, a bow, a shield or a spear, liable to bringing a sin-offering.  Rabbi Eliezer says that these are ornaments for him and thus they are permitted.  The rabbis say that these are reprehensible as they are weapons which will be eliminated in the future, as it says in Isaiah (2:3): "And they shall beat their swords into plowshares..."  The rabbis add that a garter placed on a woman's leg to hold up stockings is pure.  It cannot become ritually impure as a utensil and it may be worn out on Shabbat.  Ankle chains, also women's ornaments, could become ritually impure and were not permitted to be worn out on Shabbat.

Amud (a) of daf 64 talks about different ornaments and whether or not they can become ritually impure. The rabbis suggest may verbal analogies, gezera shava, can help us to understand which items are ritual pure or impure.  They argue about what is actually comparable.  One of the more basic gezera shava is comparing the ritual impurity caused by a creeping animal by that caused by semen.  Thrown into this conversation is the assertion that a man must not gaze on women, even body parts normally exposed like their little fingers, in case that look becomes lustful.

A new Mishna tells us that women are permitted to go out on Shabbat with strans of hair that she put on her hair whether from her own hair that of another made from a person or an animal into a wig.  She may go out with an ornament called a totefet or sarvitin, head and hair ornaments, when they are sewn and will not all off.  She is also permitted out with a woollen cap or a wig to the courtyard, a cloth in her ear a cloth in her sandal and a cloth placed due to her menstrual status, but only into the courtyard and not the public domain.  Women are permitted out with pepper, a grain of salt, anything placed in her mouth for healing or preventing bad odour as long as it is not placed into her mouth for the first time on Shabbat.  If it falls out she may not replace it.  A false tooth and a gold tooth are permitted by Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi but the rabbis prohibit this.

The rabbis discuss which kinds of hair might be regarded as repulsive and thus not permitted to be out on Shabbat.  Is it enough to say that a girl does not out with the hair of an elderly woman and vice versa?  The rabbis state that elderly women would want to look young  but girls would not want to look elderly, and so we learn about some of the biases of ancient times.

Considering a woman's behaviour during menstruation, there is an argument about whether or not she should wear rouge and eyeshadow, at least in the courtyard for her husband to see, at these times.  Commentaries teach us that this may be to encourage men to be attracted to their wives at all times, including when she is meant to be separated from him due to menses.  Rav Yehuda says that Rav is against this.  

Our daf ends when we go back to our Mishna's teaching that an animal belonging to a Jew may not go out on Shabbat with a bell around its neck even when it is plugged.  This is because it looks as thought one were taking the animal to the marketplace.  It may be permitted in the courtyard.

Shabbat 62: Men, Women & Phylacteries; The Haughty Sins of First Temple Era Women

In a discussion about removing an amulet or phlylacteries before entering a bathroom, we learn that the shin embossed on the box of the phylacteries of the head, the shape of the letter dalet in the straps of the phylacteries and the letter yud of the phylacteries are halachot transmitted to Moses from Sinai.  These maintain the objects' sanctity.

Our last Mishna said that we could not go out with these three things, now defined:
- Shiryon, a coat of mail, zerada, armour made of clales
- Savarta, a leather hat worn under a metal helmet
- Maggafayim, a leg armour covering the shin

We are introduced to a new Mishna.   It teaches that a woman may not go out to the public domain with a perforated needle, nor with a ring that has a seal on it, nor with a kulyar, a kovelet, nor a flask of balsam oil.  If she did these things she is liable to bring a sin-offering.  Rabbi Meir says that this is because she committed the sin of carrying.  The rabbis exempt on who goes out on Shabbat with a kovelet and with a flask of balsam oil for these are ornaments and do not the prohibition of carrying on Shabbat. 

The Gemara suggests that the halachot regarding rings are opposite when it comes to women and men.  This is used to reinforce an idea that men and women are peoples within themselves who should not cross over into each others' domains.  Ulla holds this opinion strongly.  Shepherds may go out on Shabbat in sacks, even though that is their usual garb.  There is a principal that a man and a woman may wear each others' ornaments occasionally and so they are permitted to go out in these ornaments. 

Abaye argues that anyone, man or woman, who finds phylacteries outside of the city should put them on and wear them back to the city one seta t a time.  Wouldn't a woman be carrying, for she is excluded from time-bound positive mitzvot?  The principal is that women are exempt from every time-bound positive mitzva.  It is noted that there is no Torah prohibition violated when a labour is performed in an atypical manner.  Thus the Mishna might be describing a woman who is a treasurer for charity.  She would wear a ring with a seal on her finger to perform her job, not as an ornament.

We learn that a kulyar is a brooch used to fasten the collar of a woman's garment.  A kovelet is a bundle of fragrant herbs.  Is that prohibited because it is a burden, as Rabbi Meir holds, or because it is an ornament, as the rabbis believe? 

A baraita teaches that women may not go out on Shabbat with a key in her hand, liable to a sin offering if doing so.  The rabbis discuss how much of an item must be carried to determine liability. If she is carrying a class filled with fragrance, for example, she is not liable if the amount of liquid is less than an olive bulk of food.  But if the flask is empty, she is liable for carrying the empty flask. 

We learn that the chief ointment for annointing is balsam oil.   This and drinking wine in mizrekei are done by those who are not grieved for the hurt of Joseph (Amos 6:6).  There is a principal regarding these ideas: when there are matters that involve and element of pleasure and an element of joy, the Sages prohibit it due to mourning over the destruction of the Temple.  If there is only an element of pleasure but no element of joy, there is no decree. 

If people urinate before their beds while naked, they are defined as seruchim.  The rabbis say that these people will be exiled at the head of exiles.  They also might be those who eat and drink with each other and then join their beds to each other and swap wives and d"defile their beds with semen that was not theirs".    One whose wife curses him in his presence is also considered to be doing a great transgression.  Demeaning ritual washing of the hands is also deemed terribly improper.

There is a list of traits that the daughters of Zion are accused of in the First Temple era.  These include haughtiness, walking with outstretched necks and wanton eyes, walking and mincing as they go and making a tinkling with their feet (Isaiah 3:16).  This means that they were immodest, walking heel to toe in small steps, to be noticed, The would beacon men with blue eye shadow.  They would even throw perfume at young men in the market place to instill the evil inclination into them like the venom of a viper. 

The consequence for these behaviours are stench, baldness, sackloth clothing, sores, etc. We are taught that leprosy would strike the daughters of Zion and that their secret parts would be laid bare.  Their innards would be poured out like a jug and their orifices would be covered with hair as thick as a forest. 

Shabbat 61: Sandals & Feet, Amulets & their Sanctity

The rabbis look our last Mishna's statement about not wearing a sandal on only one foot  unless there is a wound.  Which foot would wear the sandal?  Wouldn't the sandal help one avoid pain?  When a person is seen with one sandal and is in pain, no-one would worry that a person would be carrying the other shoe.  

Rav Huna says that the sandal is worn on the foot with the wound and Chiyya bar Rav says that it worn the healthy foot.  Chiyya is not worried about people thinking he is carrying the other shoe because they will assume that he left it at home.  

The rabbis discuss how shoes might be put on, similarly to how tefillin are put on.  Rabbi Yochanan say that this means that we apply them to the left arm.  The Gemara says that the right shoe is put on first.  Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak says that righteous people put on the right shoe, leave it untied, put on the left shoe, tie it, and then tie the right shoe.  

The Gemara discusses feet for a while.  The right foot takes precedence.  We put that shoe on first and take it off last so that it remains on the one's foot longer than the left.  We wash the right foot first.  We spread oil on the right foot first.  And, by the way, if we spread oil on our bodies, we begin with our heads because it is "the king of all one's limbs".  

Our Mishna says that we cannot go out with tefillin on Shabbat. This is to ensure that we do not carry them in our hands in the public domain, even accidentally.  The rabbis discuss what might be the punishment for this.  They also consider whether tefillin might be worn as a garment or ornament.  

Our last Mishna also teaches that we can only go out with an amulet when made by an expert.  Rav Pappa says this means that the amulet does not need to be proven effective.  The Mishna had not mentioned efficacy.  The Sages discussed this in a Tosefta.  An effective amulet is one that healed a person three times, whether the amulet is written or made of herbal roots and whether it healed a a sick person or one who was dangerously ill.  These are all permitted out on Shabbat.  

An amulet is permitted when one has epilepsy and when one has never fallen due to epilepsy but is afraid of contracting epilepsy.  It can be tied and untied in the public domain as long as it was not tied to a ring or bracelet while in the public domain.  

We are introduced to another set of opinions.  A baraita said that an effective amulet was one that healed three people as one.  The Gemara says that this means that it must have healed three different people with three different illnesses.  Rav Pappa agrees that one who created such amulets would be considered an expert.  However the amulet itself might not be proven effective.  How do we figure out which amulets are considered to be truly effective and which amulet makers are true experts?  

The Sages wonder whether amulets have an element of sanctity or not.  Can they be rescued from fire on Shabbat?  We cannot do so because the the blessings and the amulets might carry the letters of holy names and matters of the Torah, they are not close enough to Torah derived to warrant that action.   If there are holy words on the amulet, then like a vessel, these parts can be removed from the object.  

If one believes that an amulet is holy, one will need to remove the amulet when going to the bathroom.  It's possible that one will carry the amulets more than four cubits in the public domain when they leave the bathroom.  It is argued that because this was not mentioned in the Mishna, amulets are not holy.  Or, the Gemara insists, we may be speaking about amulets made of herbal roots that have no sanctity.  

A baraita taught that both a written amulet and an amulet of herbal roots are equal regarding halacha.  Thus perhaps we are thinking of a person who is dangerously ill.  This person is permitted to enter the bathroom with the amulet, even if it desecrates the name of G-d.  In the same baraita the halacha applies to both a sick person an a person who is close to death.  Do they all share the same status?  

Another opinion is that the amulet heals and though one holds it in his hand, one may go out with it.  When considering healing there is no difference between an amulet hanging from one's neck or in one's hand.  Our next daf will counter this, as well.

Shabbat 60: Spiked Sandals and Other Footwear Stories

The rabbis end their conversation regarding rings with and without seals and women's needles without perforations, used to part and then hold their hair.  We learn that rings are considered to be vessels, and that we look to the fundamental purpose of an object to define its status.  We also learn that women are not permitted to comb our hair on Shabbat, nor are garters, used to hold up our pantyhose, subject to ritual impurity.  These 

A new Mishna teaches that a man may not go out on Shabbat with a spiked sandal nor a single sandal unless there is a wound on his foot. He cannot go out with phylacteries, nor with an amulet made by a hobbyist, not with a shiryon, nor with a kasda, nor with maggafayim.  If he does any of these things, he is not liable to bring a sin-offering.

The Gemara first focuses on the spiked sandal.  Shmuel tells the story of one who ran from enemies and were hiding in a cave.  Those hiding said that no-one could leave because they might bring attention to the others.  Once a person was wearing a reversed sandal and they believed that a person had left the cave. Believing that enemies were coming in to attack them they pushed each other and killed each other more than their enemies would have killed.  The law against going out into the public domain on Shabbat is a commemoration of this event.

Rami bar Yechezkel says that the decree was based on a group of people who heard a spiked sandal from behind the synagogue where they sat.  They thought these were enemies and pushed each other so violently that the killed each other in greater numbers than their enemies had done.

Why would the spiked sandal only be prohibited on Shabbat?  Perhaps this incident happened on Shabbat, it is suggested.  What about a Festival?  Didn't we learn on in the same Mishna that one may not send a spiked sandal nor an unsewn shoe on a Festival because using them on a Festival is prohibited?  Thus wearing a spiked sandal on Shabbat is also prohibited.  Perhaps the decree regards times when people will assemble.

Rabbi Chanina ben Akiva notes that decrees applying to specific circumstances are not generalized.  Once, the ashes of the red heifer were coming across the Jordan river.  Ritual impurity was found in the bottom of the boat.  The Sages then tried to prohibit the transport of the ashes of the red heifer over any body of water, bridges, rivers... Instead, the decree was that transport of the ashes of a red heifer in the Jordan River and in a boat was prohibited.  It is noted that Festivals and Shabbat are similar to each other - the Mishna taught that food is the only difference between a Festival and Shabbat.

The remainder of amud (b) is devoted to the construction of sandals.  Which sandal is our Mishna referring to?  Does it have to have a certain number of nails, or have lost a certain number of nails?  We learn that the soles, the design, and the number of nails in sandals differ in different cities.  We learn about the making of spiked sandals, where nails are hammered into the the bottom of the shoe to increase the shoe's durability.

A side note - Steinsaltz shares that one of the reasons behind the prohibition of spiked shoes might have to do with the gentle sensibilities of pregnant women, who might miscarry because of the frightening sight or sound of these shoes.  Miscarriage could be caused by her memories of war aroused by the use of these shoes.  Now those are loud shoes... or incredibly sensitive women!

Shabbat 59: Social Status Defined by Jewelry and Stating One's Opinion

The rabbis continue their conversation about using a bell as a vessel and how that item's status might might change.  Amud (b) is devoted to another topic introduced in our last Mishna, that of a "city of gold".  Rabba bar bar Chana says that Rabbi Yochanan said that this refers to a Jerusalem of Gold, which is a gold tiara engraved with a depiction of the city of Jerusalem.  These are made as copies of the one that Rabbi Akiva made for his wife.

These tiaras were not to be worn in the public domain on Shabbat.  Is this because it is a burden and not an ornament, as said by Rabbi Meir?  Rabbi Eliezer says that a woman may wear a city of gold ornament from the start.  The rabbis say that it is an ornament.  They do not want it worn into the public domain in case a woman removes it to show it to others. Rabbi Eliezer argues that only "important women" would wear such ornaments, and they would not remove those ornaments to show them to others.

What about other ornaments, like a kelila, an ornament like a tiara but made of fabric that might include metal.  The Gemara says that it is agreed that it is prohibited to be in teh public domain.  They only disagree in that Rav believes that the metal is the primary element in a kelila, and Shmuel says that the woven fabric is the primary element and thus it is permitted.  Rav Ashi teaches this with leniency and so it is permitted to wear a kelila in the public domain.  

The Gemara then tells us a story said to Rav.  A bit and tall man who had a limp came to Neharde'a.  He taught that it is permitted to go into the public domain with a kelila.  Rav deduces that this must be Levi.  Thus Rabbi Afes must have passed away and Rabbi Chanina sat at the head of the yeshiva in Ha'Aretz.  If Rabbi Chanina had died, Levi would have been under the authority of Rabbi Afes.  Thus Levi stayed outside of the study hall in deference to Rabbi Chanina.   Levi taught in Neharde'a that twenty-four women from Neharde'a and eighteen women from Mechoza went into the public domain wearing the kelila.  Many women in Neharde'a and Mechoza could afford these ornaments.

Perhaps there is a belt that is similar to a kelila; made of woven fabric andin laid with gold.  A belt might be made out of metal only.  Kings' belts were permitted to be worn in the public domain on Shabbat and they were pure gold.  The rabbis discuss other belts, straps, and even a katla, a small bib hung from the neck.  Nezamim, nose rings, and katla are both said to be prohibited to wear out on Shabbat.  Our daf ends with the beginning of a conversation about the seal on a ring.

Shabbat 58: Cows' Bells and Ritual Purity

At the start of our Mishna, the rabbis consider whether slaves can wear seals on their on their clothing or around their necks on Shabbat while in the public domain.  Can a bell be hung around his neck? What if a bell is around his clothes?  Can cows go out with bells around their necks, or around their fabric around their necks?  And what is the issue here - ritual impurity?

On animals, theses are considered to be burdens rather than ornaments.  Seals and bells cannot become ritually impure because animal ornaments and utensils on animals do not become ritually impure.  

The Gemara speaks about who made the seal and the substance used to make it.  Does it matter if the seal is made of clay; if it is unimportant to the master who made it?  The rabbis debate their different positions: either seals cannot become ritually impure or they cannot.  The rabbis try to discern whether the baraita was referring to vessels of stone, dung, and earth or those of metal.  In the same baraita, were we taught that the problem with a bell is that it can become detached and then carried on Shabbat.  Bells woven into a garment are thus permitted.

The bell of a door is ritually pure.  The door is not a vessel, but part of a house, which is attached to the ground.  Anything attached to the ground maintains that status of ritual purity.  If a bell from a door is converted into a bell for an animal, its status can change.  When the bell now has an infal, a clapper, the bell can become ritually impure.  The clapper may change the bell into a vessel.  To become ritually pure again, it should be put through fire and then sprinkled with water.  If it cannot be put through fire, it should be put through water.  

Shabbat 57: Women's Head Coverings and Ornaments in Public on Shabbat

We begin Perek VI and a new Mishna today. The Mishna asks which items a woman may bring into the public domain on Shabbat.  It says that we cannot go out with strings of wool, flax, nor anything women use within our hair braids.  If it already braided in, it is permitted.  There is no immersion in a mikva until those ties are gone and the hair is loose.  We cannot go out with ornaments called totefet, sarvitin not sewn into our head coverings, nor with a kavul.  These terms are defined later in our daf.

We may not go out with a katla, a city of gold ornament.  No nose rings, nor rings without seals and no needles that are not perforated are permitted on women in the public realm.  If we accidentally went out with any of these things, we were not liable to bring a sin-offering.  Torah law says that we are permitted to going into the public domain wearing ornaments on Shabbat.  The rabbis were concerned that women would take them off to show someone and that they would carry the ornaments more than four cubits in the public domain, which is certainly not allowed.

The Gemara fist asks questions about the mikvah.  Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, notes that his sisters do not remove ribbons from their hair before mikvah, and so we can assume that water gets everywhere even without severe loosening. The Gemara explains that this would be if the sisters were not also dirty.  If they washed their hair before the mikvah, of course they would have taken out these items.  The rabbis discuss whether girls even wear ornaments like in the same way as other women.  They describe piercing girls' ears but keeping the holes open with strings and not jewelry.  Women are not permitted to strangle ourselves, but if the strings are tied loosely, necklaces are permitted. 

Rav Yosef says that a totefet is a packet of spices to ward off the evil eye.  Abaye says that its status should be that of an effective amulet, which is permitted and may be moved on Shabbat.  Rav Yehuda says in the name of Abaye what a totefet is anappazainu, an ornament worn on women's foreheads.  The same opinion was taught in a baraita.  A woman may go out with a gilded hairnet that held the hair in place, and with the totefet, and with the sarvitin, ornaments attached to the haircover but sitting on her forehead or her cheeks.  A woman would never remove her head covering to show a friend her ornaments.

The rabbis discuss further: a kavul is the headcovering of a woman who is a slave. The totefet goes around a woman's forehead from ear to ear.  Sarvitin are the ornaments attached to the net that reach dow to her cheeks.  Rav Huna notes that poor women make the  from different types of coloured materials while wealthy women make them from silver or gold.  A kavul may be a cap made of wood.  A woman is allowed to wear anything at all under her haircovering.  An istema or a beizyunei is a hat or ribbon used to gather hairs that stick out from the headdress.  Diverse kinds rules do not apply to the istema because it is made with hard felt and not woven together.