## Shabbat Daf 62a

###### Shabbat 62a:1
[Shabbat 62a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shabbat/r/62a:1)

וְהָתַנְיָא, רַבִּי אוֹשַׁעְיָא אוֹמֵר: וּבִלְבַד שֶׁלֹּא יֹאחֲזֶנּוּ בְּיָדוֹ וְיַעֲבִירֶנּוּ אַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת בִּרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**But wasn’t it taught** in a *baraita* that **Rabbi Oshaya says** with regard to an amulet: **As long as he does not hold it in his hand and carry it four cubits in the public domain?** Apparently, even with regard to an amulet, there is a distinction between wearing it and carrying it.


###### Shabbat 62a:2
[Shabbat 62a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shabbat/r/62a:2)

[אֶלָּא] הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן — בִּמְחוּפֶּה עוֹר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather, with what are we dealing here? With** an amulet that is **covered in leather.** Since the writing itself is covered, the name of God is not degraded when the amulet is brought into the bathroom with him.


###### Shabbat 62a:3
[Shabbat 62a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shabbat/r/62a:3)

וַהֲרֵי תְּפִילִּין דִּמְחוּפּוֹת עוֹר, וְתַנְיָא: הַנִּכְנָס לְבֵית הַכִּסֵּא — חוֹלֵץ תְּפִילִּין בְּרִחוּק אַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת וְנִכְנָס.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara objects. There is writing on the scrolls of **phylacteries, which is covered in** the **leather** of boxes housing the scrolls, **and** nevertheless **it was taught** in a *baraita*: **One who enters a bathroom** while wearing phylacteries **must remove** the **phylacteries at a distance of four cubits and** only then **enter.** There is no halakhic difference whether or not the writing is covered.


###### Shabbat 62a:4
[Shabbat 62a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shabbat/r/62a:4)

הָתָם מִשּׁוּם שִׁין. דְּאָמַר אַבָּיֵי: שִׁין שֶׁל תְּפִילִּין הֲלָכָה לְמֹשֶׁה מִסִּינַי. וְאָמַר אַבָּיֵי: דָּלֶת שֶׁל תְּפִילִּין הֲלָכָה לְמֹשֶׁה מִסִּינַי. וְאָמַר אַבָּיֵי: יוֹד שֶׁל תְּפִילִּין הֲלָכָה לְמֹשֶׁה מִסִּינַי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara rejects this: **There,** with regard to phylacteries, the prohibition to enter the bathroom is not due to the sacred writing on the scrolls inside the phylacteries. Rather, it is **due to the** letter ***shin*** that protrudes from the leather of the boxes housing the scroll in the phylacteries of the head, **as Abaye said:** The source of the requirement of the ***shin* of the phylacteries is a *halakha*** transmitted **to Moses from Sinai.** It is required by Torah law. **And, Abaye said:** The knot in the shape of the letter ***dalet*** in the straps **of the phylacteries** of the head **is a *halakha*** transmitted **to Moses from Sinai. And, Abaye said:** The **letter *yod* of the phylacteries is a *halakha* transmitted to Moses from Sinai.** It is due to those letters that one must safeguard the sanctity of the phylacteries and refrain from taking them into the bathroom.


###### Shabbat 62a:5
[Shabbat 62a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shabbat/r/62a:5)

וְלֹא בְּשִׁרְיוֹן וְלֹא בְּקַסְדָּא וְלֹא בְּמַגָּפַיִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
We learned in the mishna: **And** he may **neither** go out **with *shiryon*, nor with a *kasda*, nor with *maggafayim*.** These terms were not understood, and therefore the Gemara explains them:


###### Shabbat 62a:6
[Shabbat 62a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shabbat/r/62a:6)

שִׁרְיוֹן — זַרְדָּא. קַסְדָּא — אָמַר רַב: סַנְוָארְתָא. מַגָּפַיִים — אָמַר רַב: פֻּזְמָקֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
***Shiryon*** is **a coat of mail [*zerada*],** armor made of scales. ***Kasda*: Rav said** that it is **a leather hat [*sanvarta*]** worn under a metal helmet. ***Maggafayim*: Rav said** they are **leg armor** worn beneath the knee.


###### Shabbat 62a:7
[Shabbat 62a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shabbat/r/62a:7)

**מַתְנִי׳** לֹא תֵּצֵא אִשָּׁה בַּמַּחַט הַנְּקוּבָה, וְלֹא בְּטַבַּעַת שֶׁיֵּשׁ עָלֶיהָ חוֹתָם, וְלֹא בְּכוֹלֵיאָר, וְלֹא בְּכוֹבֶלֶת, וְלֹא בִּצְלוֹחִית שֶׁל פִּלְיָיטוֹן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** **A woman may neither go out** to the public domain **with a perforated needle,** i.e., a standard needle with an eye, **nor with a ring that has a seal on it, nor with a *kulyar*, nor with a *kovelet*,** the identity of which will be discussed in the Gemara, **nor with a flask of balsam oil.**


###### Shabbat 62a:8
[Shabbat 62a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shabbat/r/62a:8)

וְאִם יָצְתָה — חַיֶּיבֶת חַטָּאת, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר. וַחֲכָמִים פּוֹטְרִין בְּכוֹבֶלֶת וּבִצְלוֹחִית שֶׁל פִּלְיָיטוֹן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And if she did go out** into the public domain, **she is liable to bring a sin-offering;** this is **the statement of Rabbi Meir,** who holds that in doing so she violated the Torah prohibition of carrying a burden in the public domain on Shabbat. **And the Rabbis exempt** one who goes out on Shabbat **with a *kovelet* and with a flask of balsam oil.** In their opinion, these are ornaments, and therefore they do not fundamentally violate the Torah prohibition of carrying in the public domain on Shabbat.


###### Shabbat 62a:9
[Shabbat 62a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shabbat/r/62a:9)

**גְּמָ׳** אָמַר עוּלָּא וְחִילּוּפֵיהֶן בְּאִישׁ. אַלְמָא קָסָבַר עוּלָּא: כָּל מִידֵּי דַּחֲזֵי לְאִישׁ לָא חֲזֵי לְאִשָּׁה, וּמִידִּי דַּחֲזֵי לְאִשָּׁה לָא חֲזֵי לְאִישׁ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** With regard to that which we learned in the mishna that a woman may not go out on Shabbat with a ring that has a seal, and by inference that she may go out with a ring without a seal, **Ulla said: And the reverse** of **these** *halakhot* is true **with regard to a man.** A man who wears a ring with a seal in the public domain is exempt. However, if he wears a ring without a seal, he is liable to bring a sin-offering as it is not considered an ornament for a man. Based on that statement, the Gemara concludes: **Apparently, Ulla holds** that **every object that is suitable for a man is not suitable for a woman, and an object that is suitable for a woman is not suitable for a man.**


###### Shabbat 62a:10
[Shabbat 62a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shabbat/r/62a:10)

מֵתִיב רַב יוֹסֵף: הָרוֹעִים יוֹצְאִין בְּשַׂקִּין. וְלֹא הָרוֹעִים בִּלְבַד אָמְרוּ, אֶלָּא כָּל אָדָם. אֶלָּא שֶׁדַּרְכָּן שֶׁל הָרוֹעִים לָצֵאת בְּשַׂקִּין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Yosef raised an objection** from the *Tosefta*: **Shepherds may go out** on Shabbat **in** garments made of **sacks. And not** with regard to **the shepherds alone did** the Sages **say** that they are permitted to go out in sacks on Shabbat; **rather, any person** may do so. **However,** the Sages taught the *halakha* with regard to shepherds because **it is the** standard **practice of shepherds to go out in sacks.** Apparently, although a sack is not a typical garment for most people, it is permitted even for one who is not a shepherd and would not generally wear it. Based on the same principle, although men do not generally wear women’s ornaments and women do not generally wear men’s ornaments, since occasionally a man might wear an ornament belonging to a woman or vice versa, each should be permitted to go out into the public domain with the ornament of the other.


###### Shabbat 62a:11
[Shabbat 62a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shabbat/r/62a:11)

[אֶלָּא] אָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף: קָסָבַר עוּלָּא נָשִׁים עַם בִּפְנֵי עַצְמָן הֵן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather, Rav Yosef said: Ulla holds** that **women are a people unto themselves.** The difference between the standard practice of men and women is greater than the difference between the standard practice of practitioners of different professions.


###### Shabbat 62a:12
[Shabbat 62a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shabbat/r/62a:12)

אֵיתִיבֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: הַמּוֹצֵא תְּפִילִּין — מַכְנִיסָן זוּג זוּג, אֶחָד הָאִישׁ וְאֶחָד הָאִשָּׁה. וְאִי אָמְרַתְּ נָשִׁים עַם בִּפְנֵי עַצְמָן הֵן, וְהָא מִצְוַת עֲשֵׂה שֶׁהַזְּמַן גְּרָמָא הוּא, וְכׇל מִצְוַת עֲשֵׂה שֶׁהַזְּמַן גְּרָמָא נָשִׁים פְּטוּרוֹת?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Abaye raised an objection** to Rav Yosef’s statement from the *Tosefta*: **One who finds phylacteries** outside of the city on Shabbat **should** don them and **bring them into** the city **one pair at a time.** This applies to **both a man and a woman. And if you say** that **women are a people unto themselves, isn’t** the mitzva to don phylacteries **a time-bound, positive mitzva,** as there are times when the mitzva to don phylacteries is not in effect? **And** the following is a halakhic principle: **Women are exempt from every time-bound, positive mitzva.** If, in fact, the clothing and ornaments of a man are not suitable for a woman under any circumstances, why is a woman permitted to don the phylacteries and bring them into the city on Shabbat? Shouldn’t that be considered a prohibited act of carrying?


###### Shabbat 62a:13
[Shabbat 62a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shabbat/r/62a:13)

הָתָם קָסָבַר רַבִּי מֵאִיר: לַיְלָה זְמַן תְּפִילִּין הוּא, וְשַׁבָּת זְמַן תְּפִילִּין הוּא. הָוֵה לֵיהּ מִצְוַת עֲשֵׂה שֶׁלֹּא הַזְּמַן גְּרָמָא, וְכׇל מִצְוַת עֲשֵׂה שֶׁלֹּא הַזְּמַן גְּרָמָא — נָשִׁים חַיָּיבוֹת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **There,** with regard to phylacteries, **Rabbi Meir holds** that **night is an** appropriate **time** to don **phylacteries, and Shabbat** and Festivals are similarly **an** appropriate **time** to don **phylacteries.** Consequently, the mitzva of phylacteries is **a positive mitzva** that is **not time bound; and** in **every positive mitzva** that is **not time bound, women are obligated.** Therefore, women are permitted to don the phylacteries and bring them into the city.


###### Shabbat 62a:14
[Shabbat 62a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shabbat/r/62a:14)

וְהָא הוֹצָאָה כִּלְאַחַר יָד הִיא!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
With regard to Rabbi Meir’s ruling in the mishna that a woman is liable by Torah law if she goes out into the public domain wearing a ring with a seal, the Gemara asks: **Isn’t it** considered **carrying out in a backhanded manner?** A ring with a seal is not an ornament for a woman; it is an object like any other. One typically carries objects holding them in his hand. Wearing an object around one’s finger is atypical. There is no Torah prohibition violated when a labor is performed in an atypical manner.


###### Shabbat 62a:15
[Shabbat 62a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shabbat/r/62a:15)

אָמַר רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה: בָּאִשָּׁה גִּזְבָּרִית עָסְקִינַן. אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר בַּר חָנָה אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: תֵּרַצְתָּ אִשָּׁה, אִישׁ מַאי אִיכָּא לְמֵימַר?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Yirmeya said** that **we are dealing** in the mishna **with a woman who is a treasurer** for charity. A woman with that occupation typically wears a ring with a seal on her finger in order to perform her job. She does not, though, wear it as an ornament. **Rabba bar bar Ḥana said** that **Rabbi Yoḥanan said: You answered** and explained why, in the case of a **woman,** she would be liable to bring a sin-offering. However, in the case of a **man** who wore a ring without a seal, **what is there to say?** Why should he be liable?


###### Shabbat 62a:16
[Shabbat 62a:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shabbat/r/62a:16)

אֶלָּא אָמַר רָבָא: פְּעָמִים שֶׁאָדָם נוֹתֵן לְאִשְׁתּוֹ טַבַּעַת שֶׁיֵּשׁ עָלֶיהָ חוֹתָם לְהוֹלִיכָהּ לַקּוּפְסָא, וּמַנִּיחָתָהּ בְּיָדָהּ עַד שֶׁמַּגַּעַת לַקּוּפְסָא. וּפְעָמִים שֶׁהָאִשָּׁה נוֹתֶנֶת לְבַעֲלָהּ טַבַּעַת שֶׁאֵין עָלֶיהָ חוֹתָם לְהוֹלִיכָהּ אֵצֶל אוּמָּן לְתַקֵּן, וּמַנִּיחָהּ בְּיָדוֹ עַד שֶׁמַּגִּיעַ אֵצֶל אוּמָּן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather, Rava said** that there is a different reason: **Sometimes a person gives his wife a ring that has a seal on it to take it to** his house and place it in **a box** for safekeeping, **and,** in order to ensure that she does not lose the ring, the woman **places it in on her hand,** i.e., on her finger, **until she reaches the box. And,** likewise, **sometimes a woman gives her husband a ring that does not have a seal on it to take it to a craftsman to repair it, and** the husband **places it on his hand,** i.e., on his finger, **until he reaches the craftsman.** The purpose of wearing these rings is not for ornamentation. Nevertheless, it is considered a typical manner of carrying them.


###### Shabbat 62a:17
[Shabbat 62a:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shabbat/r/62a:17)

וְלֹא בְּכוֹלֵיאָר וְלֹא בְּכוֹבֶלֶת. מַאי כּוֹלֵיאָר? אָמַר רַב: מַכְבַּנְתָּא. כּוֹבֶלֶת — אָמַר רַב: חוּמַרְתָּא דְפִילוֹן. וְכֵן אָמַר רַב אַסִּי: חוּמַרְתָּא דְפִילוֹן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
We learned in the mishna: **Nor with a *kulyar*, nor with a *kovelet*.** The Gemara asks: **What is** a ***kulyar*? Rav said: A brooch** with which a woman fastens the collar of her garment. ***Kovelet*: Rav said** that it is **a bundle of fragrant herbs [*pilon*]. And, similarly, Rav Asi said: A bundle of fragrant herbs.**


###### Shabbat 62a:18
[Shabbat 62a:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shabbat/r/62a:18)

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: לֹא תֵּצֵא בְּכוֹבֶלֶת, וְאִם יָצְתָה — חַיֶּיבֶת חַטָּאת, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: לֹא תֵּצֵא, וְאִם יָצְתָה — פְּטוּרָה. רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: יוֹצְאָה אִשָּׁה בְּכוֹבֶלֶת לְכַתְּחִלָּה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**The Sages taught** in a *baraita*: **A woman may not go out** on Shabbat **with a bundle of fragrant herbs, and if she did go out she is liable to bring a sin-offering,** as she violated a Torah prohibition; this is **the statement of Rabbi Meir. And the Rabbis say: She may not go out** *ab initio*; **however, if she went out, she is exempt. Rabbi Eliezer says: A woman may go out with a bundle of fragrant herbs** even ***ab initio*.**


###### Shabbat 62a:19
[Shabbat 62a:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shabbat/r/62a:19)

בְּמַאי קָמִיפַּלְגִי? רַבִּי מֵאִיר סָבַר מַשּׂאוֹי הוּא. וְרַבָּנַן סָבְרִי תַּכְשִׁיט הוּא, וְדִילְמָא שָׁלְפָא וּמַחְוְיָא, וְאָתְיָא לְאֵיתוֹיֵיהּ. וְרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר סָבַר: מַאן דִּרְכַּהּ לְמִירְמֵיהּ — אִשָּׁה שֶׁרֵיחָהּ רַע, אִשָּׁה שֶׁרֵיחָהּ רָע לָא שָׁלְפָא וּמַחְוְיָא, וְלָא אָתְיָא לְאֵתוֹיֵיהּ אַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת בִּרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **With regard to what** principle **do they disagree? Rabbi Meir holds** that **it is a burden.** Therefore, one who takes it out into the public domain on Shabbat is liable to bring a sin-offering. **And the Rabbis hold** that **it is an ornament.** Nevertheless, they prohibited going out with it *ab initio* due to concern **lest she remove** the bundle of herbs from its place, **and show it** to others, **and come to carry it** in the public domain. **And Rabbi Eliezer holds: Whose practice is it to place** fragrant herbs on herself? **A woman whose odor is foul.** But **a woman whose odor is foul does not remove and show** the bundle to others because, by doing so, her odor will be detected, a situation that she would prefer to avoid. **And,** therefore she **will not come to carry it four cubits in the public domain.**


###### Shabbat 62a:20
[Shabbat 62a:20](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shabbat/r/62a:20)

וְהָתַנְיָא, רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר פּוֹטֵר בְּכוֹבֶלֶת וּבִצְלוֹחִית שֶׁל פְּלַיְיטוֹן!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
This *baraita* cites the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, who permits, even *ab initio*, going out into the public domain with a bundle of herbs. The Gemara asks: **Wasn’t it taught** in another *baraita*: **Rabbi Eliezer exempts** a woman who goes out on Shabbat **with a bundle of herbs and with a flask of balsam oil?** With regard to the *halakhot* of Shabbat, exempt means that although it is not prohibited by Torah law, it is prohibited *ab initio* by rabbinic law.


###### Shabbat 62a:21
[Shabbat 62a:21](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shabbat/r/62a:21)

לָא קַשְׁיָא: הָא כִּי קָאֵי — אַדְּרַבִּי מֵאִיר. הָא כִּי קָאֵי — אַדְּרַבָּנַן. כִּי קָאֵי אַדְּרַבִּי מֵאִיר דְּאָמַר חַיָּיב חַטָּאת — אָמַר אִיהוּ פָּטוּר. כִּי קָאֵי אַדְּרַבָּנַן דְּאָמְרִי פָּטוּר אֲבָל אָסוּר — אָמַר אִיהוּ מוּתָּר לְכַתְּחִלָּה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: This is **not difficult.** When Rabbi Eliezer made **this** statement, it was **when he was addressing** the statement **of Rabbi Meir.** When Rabbi Eliezer made **that** statement, it was **when he was addressing** the statement **of the Rabbis.** To clarify: **When he was addressing** the statement of **Rabbi Meir,** who **said** that **she is liable to bring a sin-offering, he said to him** that she is **exempt** from bringing the sacrifice. **When he was addressing** the statement of **the Rabbis, who said** that she is **exempt but** it is **prohibited** *ab initio***, he said** that it is **permitted** even ***ab initio*.**