(Permission is granted to print and redistribute this material
as long as this header and the footer at the end are included.)


prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem

Previous daf

Shabbos 59



(a) Rebbi Yochanan maintains that a bell retains its Tum'ah, since it is still fit to be used - to feed water to a child. Rava and Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Chanina require the bell to still be usable for the original purpose for which it was originally made; whereas according to Rebbi Yochanan, this is not necessary - as long as it is fit to be used in some way, it remains Tamei.

(b) No! the Amora'im are only discussing why the original Tum'ah remains, not whether the bell can now become Tamei or not; as far as becoming Tamei is concerned, we have already learned that, once the striker has been removed, it is no longer subject to Tum'ah.

(a) We learn from the future tense used with regard to Tum'as Mishkav and Moshav, that these Tum'os only become effective if the bed and the chair etc. are used exclusively for lying or sitting on, but not if they have other uses, and one 'borrows' them (as it were) to use for lying or sitting on. In that case, the owner will say to him 'Amod ve'Na'aseh Melachtenu!' Wherever such a scenario is possible, Tum'as Mishkav and Moshav do not apply. And this also applies to the Din of retaining its Tum'ah, once it breaks. It will only remain Tamei Medras (Mishkav or Moshav) as long as it is still fit to be used for its original use (sitting or lying on), but not if it now has a new use, and the owner will say to whoever is lying or sitting on it 'Amod ve'Na'aseh Melachtenu!'

(b) According to Rebbi Yochanan, the principle of 'Amod ve'Na'aseh Melachtenu' (with regard to retaining Tum'ah) applies equally to Tum'as Mes - i.e. a vessel only remains Tamei Mes as long as it is still fit to be used in a way that is similar to its original use.

(c) This contradicts what Rebbi Yochanan said earlier; namely, that even if the bell is fit for a child to drink from, it retains its Tum'ah. In fact, it conforms with Rava and Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Chanina, who required the bell to be used for ringing - similar to its original use.

(a) Rebbi Yochanan explains that the horse-shoe is subject to Tum'ah only because it is fit for a soldier to put on his own feet - to help him to escape from the battle-front (a use that is similar to its original one). He disagrees with the other Amora'im, who do not require a similar use to the original one.
This forces us to switch the opinions of Rebbi Yochanan and of Rava and Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Chanina in 1a, rather than Rebbi Yochanan and Rebbi Elazar in 2b.

(b) The reason for this Tuma'h cannot be because it can be replaced on the horse's foot, since there is no Din of ornament by an animal (and we have already learnt - 52a&b - that whatever serves the animal exclusively, is not subject to Tum'ah).

(c) If the shoe is disgusting to use for drinking, it will remain Tahor, according to the first opinion.

(d) And Rebbi Yochanan's reason will not apply to a *heavy* horse-shoe, which would only impede anyone wearing it, in his attempt to run away. Consequently, according to *him*, such a horse-shoe will not be subject to Tum'ah.




(a) Rebbi Meir holds that an Ir shel Zahav is considered a burden, and not an ornament (perhaps because, due to its immense value, it is not usually worn) - Consequently, a woman who goes out with one on Shabbos, is Chayeves; according to the Chachamim, it is an ornament, which Chazal forbade her to go out with - because she may take it off to show her friends, and subsequently carry; so if she does, she is Peturah. Whilst Rebbi Eliezer maintains that, since it is usually an aristocratic woman who wears an Ir shel Zahav, and aristocratic women do not usually take off their ornaments to show them off, she is permitted to go with them in the street.

(b) According to the first Lashon, Rav and Shmuel argue over whether a woman may go out with a head-band made of a strap, but set with gold and precious stones. Shmuel permits it, because a woman will not show off a head-band which consists basically of a strap; whereas according to Rav, the most prominent part of the band is the gold and the precious stones, so the woman *will* take it off, in order to show it to her friends.

(c) According to the second Lashon, their argument concerns a silver head-band (which they both agreed was forbidden - in the first Lashon), which Shmuel permits because (like Rebbi Eliezer by an Ir shel Zahav), it is an aristocratic woman who wears a silver head-band, and aristocratic women do not tend to take off their ornaments to show their friends. (This concession does not extend to other ornaments - see Tosfos DH 'Ma'n').

(d) If Rav permitted a woman to go out with a head-band, it is a proof for the second Lashon, that their Machlokes is by a silver head-band, but that, by a strap head-band, Rav agrees with Shmuel. Why?
Because according to the first Lashon, Rav forbids both types of head-band.

(a) The name of the great, tall lame man who arrived in Neherda'a from Eretz Yisrael was Levi.

(b) Rav understand that Rebbi Efes, the Rosh Yeshivah, must have died, to be succeeded by Rebbi Chanina. This meant that Levi, who was Rebbi Chanina's superior, had nobody to learn from; and that was why he arrived in Bavel.

(c) Until now, Levi had remained in Eretz Yisrael only in order to keep Rebbi Chanina company. Rebbi Chanina had been appointed by Rebbi as his successor, but had declined to accept the post in deference to Rebbi Efes, who was over two years his senior. Nevertheless, on account of his prominence, Rebbi Chanina sat outside the Beis ha'Medrash, where Levi joined him, to keep him company.

(d) Had Rebbi Chanina died, Levi would have remained in Eretz Yisrael, under Rebbi Efes, who was older than him. So it must have been Rebbi Efes who died. And besides, Rebbi Chanina could not possibly have died before having taken over the position of Rosh Yeshivah - in order to fulfill the words of the Tzadik, Rebbi, who had said that he would become the Rosh Yeshivah, and the Pasuk says in Iyov "ve'Sigzar Omer ve'Yakum Lach".

(a) We are not afraid that one may come to take off the Kamra to show to one's friends, because a belt is one article of clothing that, however beautiful it looks, one does not remove it, since that will result in one's clothes falling down.

(b) According to the second Lashon, a Kamra is made of silver, and is permitted 'like a belt of Kings'. Most ordinary people did not wear such a precious belt - so for them, it was not considered an article of clothing. The Chidush is that 'all of Yisrael are like princes'.

(a) The Gemara merely said 'Trei Hemyanei Ka'amrat'!, without saying whether two belts are obviously permitted or whether they are obviously forbidden. Rashi point out that the Gemara later (Daf 120a) enumerates the eighteen garments that Rebbi Yossi permits to wear, in order to save them from a fire, and only one belt is included in the list. Had two belts been permitted, then the Gemara should have listed nineteen garments - including *two* belts.

(b) 'That wide strip of cloak (something like a scarf), is permitted, only if it has straps with which to tie it; if not, it is forbidden' - since it may fall off, and he will come to carry it.

(c) A 'Katla' was a sort of a napkin that a woman tied around her neck by means of straps that were threaded through loops sewn on its top. It was set with gold and was very precious. It hung below her neck to prevent the food that she ate from falling on to her clothes.
Alternatively, it was a sort of clasp in the shape of a crescent, which held the top ends of her dress together.

(a) A 'Nezem' is a nose-ring, and a 'Taba'as', a finger-ring.

(b) Rebbi Zeira connects the Mishnah and Beraisa with the Machlokes between Rebbi Nechemyah and the Rabbanan. Our Mishnah, which renders a woman Chayeves for going out with a signet-ring, holds like Rebbi Nechemyah, who considers the signet the main part of the ring; whereas the Beraisa, which lists a signet-ring among a woman's ornaments, holds like the Chachamim, who go after the ring, and not after the signet.

(c) Rebbi Nechemyah says that a corral ring with a metal signet is subject to Tum'ah, because he goes after the signet.

1. According to Rebbi Nechemyah, a wooden yoke with metal yoke-pins is subject to Tumah, because he goes after the yoke-pin;
2. a wooden sales-stand with metal nails
and 3. a large wooden scales with metal chains - are subject to Tum'ah, because in all these cases, Rebbi Nechemyah goes after the metal accessories (If the accessories were made of wood and the yoke, the sales-stand and the scales of wood, then they would all be Tahor (see Tosfos DH 'Rebbi Nechemyah').

(b) In all of these cases, the Rabbanan go after the main object, and not the accessories. Consequently, if the yoke etc., is made of metal, it is Tamei, and if it is made of wood, it is Tahor.

(a) According to Rava, the author of the Beraisa too, is Rebbi Nechemyah. When the Beraisa says 'Bein she'Yesh Aleha Chosem, Bein she'Ein Aleha Chosem' it is not referring entirely to women's ornaments. What the Tana means, is that if the ring *has* a signet, then it is a man's ornament, and if it does *not*, then it is a woman's ornament.

(b) Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak too, establishes the Beraisa, as well as our Mishnah, like Rebbi Nechemyah. When the Beraisa says 'Bein she'Yesh Aleha Chosem' etc. it does not relate to the Reisha, which discusses women's ornaments, but to the Din of Tum'ah, to tell us that, even though a signet-ring is not a woman's ornament, it is nevertheless subject to Tum'ah, since it is a functional vessel (and the Torah writes in Bamidbar "Kol K'li Ma'aseh"). 'Tachshitei Nashim' mentioned in the Reisha of the Beraisa refers to 'she'Ein Aleha Chosem' only.

Next daf


For further information on
subscriptions, archives and sponsorships,
contact Kollel Iyun Hadaf,