(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 64



(a) Sak is made of goat's hair.

(b) When the Beraisa rules that Sak is Tamei because it is woven, it is fact, referring to three strands of Sak which a man twines together - without weaving them - to use as ribbons in his daughter's hair; and it is telling us that, although they have not been woven, they are considered as if they had been, and are subject to Tum'ah.

(c) It is the shepherds who used to wear clothes made of goat's hair, as we learnt earlier with regard to his head-gear.

(a) Initially, we learn from "O Sak" that even accessories of a horse's saddle which are made out of goat's hair are subject to Tum'ah, provided they are spun and woven,.

(b) Ropes and cords made of goat's hair are not subject to Tum'ah, because, unlike Kilkeli and Chavak, they are not even spun.

(a) We cannot learn any Binyan Av to be lenient by Tum'as Mes (e.g. that ropes and cords made of goat's hair should not be subject to Tum'ah) from Tum'as Sheretz, because Tum'as Mes is inherently more stringent than Tum'as Sheretz.

(b) Tum'as Mes is more stringent than Tum'as Sheretz, inasmuch as its Tum'ah lasts for seven days, while Tum'as Sheretz lasts for only *one*.

(c) Now that we have the Gezeirah Shavah of 'Beged ve'Or'(which is open to work both ways), we can learn Kilkeli and Chavak by Tum'as Sheratzim from Tum'as Mes, where the Torah writes "ve'*Chol* Ma'aseh Izim". Consequently, we can use "O Sak" to include things made of a horse's or a cow's tail in the Din of Tum'as Sheratzim.

(d) We cannot even learn this Chumra from Tum'as Sheratzim to Tum'as Mes with a Binyan Av, because' although we said earlier that Tum'as Mes is more stringent because its Tum'ah lasts for seven days, we have the counter-argument that most kinds of Tum'ah last for only one day - i.e. Sheretz, Neveilah, Shichvas Zera, Maga ha'Zav and Maga Tamei Mes, whereas only a few Tum'os last for seven days.

(a) We would not learn Tum'as Mes from the Chumros of Tum'as Sheretz, because Sheretz has a Chumra over Mes: namely, whereas Sheretz is Metamei already when it is the size of a 'Ke'adashah', Mes requires a 'Kezayis'.

(b) "Beged ve'Or" is not needed by Sheretz, because we learn Sheretz from Shichvas Zera through the medium of 'Semuchin' (since they follow one another in Vayikra), and the Torah has written by Shichvas Zera " "ve'Chol Beged ve'Chol Or" - leaving us with an extra "Beged ve'Or" available for the Gezeirah Shavah.

(c) Tamei Mes too, is derived from Shichvas Zera, by means of a Hekesh, since both are mentioned in the same Pasuk in Vayikra. Here too, "Beged ve'Or" remain superfluous.

(a) The Kumaz was an ornament worn on the womb and shaped like it. That explains why Unkelus translates it as 'Gichuch', meaning frivolity.

(b) Moshe was originally angry with the officers for bringing back the women whom they had captured. He accused them of the same sin as that which caused the plague which took twenty-four thousand lives, and which resulted in their having to go to war with Midyan, to avenge Klal Yisrael's humiliation. When they replied that none of the men were guilty of sinning with the women, he asked them why they then found it necessary to bring an atonement - consisting of the ornaments which they were donating.

(c) The officers pointed out that, although the soldiers were not guilty of actually sinning with the Midionite women, they were not however, absolved of bad thoughts, for which the ornaments were largely responsible.

(d) The Torah lists the outer ornaments together with the inner ones, to teach us that gazing at just the little finger of a woman (where the ring is worn), is just as bad as gazing at the rest of her body.




(a) The Mishnah needs to inform us that a woman is permitted to go out ...
1. ...with another woman's hair, because we might otherwise have thought that only hair taken from herself is permitted, but not hair taken from another woman. Why not? Because somebody else's hair is somewhat disgusting, and we would therefore suspect that other people will laugh at her, and she will remove it - in spite of the fact that *that* will mean uncovering her hair.
2. ... with animal's hair, because, even to the extent that another woman's hair is not *so* disgusting, animal's hair is, so that she would certainly be forbidden to go out with it. Therefore, we need the Mishnah to teach us that even *that* is permitted.
(b) An old woman is not permitted to go out with strands of hair taken from a young one, because black hair on white looks ugly, and people are likely to laugh at her, in which case she will remove it and carry it in the street.

(c) The Mishnah does not really need to tell us that a young woman is forbidden to go out with hair taken from an old one - that looks even more weird than the other way round, and the suspicion that people will laugh at her etc. is even stronger. Only, since the Mishnah mentioned the one, it sees fit to mention the other.

1. Although there were two opinions regarding 'Kevul' mentioned in the first Mishnah in the Perek, the Kevul here, is unanimously translated as a woolen hat.
2. A Pei'ah Nochris is a Sheitel.
(b) No! she is not permitted to go out with them in the street. She is however, permitted to wear them in the courtyard.

(c) A woman is permitted to go in the street with a pepper or a grain of salt provided she put it there before Shabbos (Tosfos DH 'u'Vilevad she'Lo Tetzei' discusses why that is).


1. A woman *is* permitted to go in the street with a detachable false tooth on Shabbos, but ...
2. ... she is *not* permitted to go out with a gold one.
(a) According to Rav, her ornaments are not Muktzah, and she may walk around the house or the courtyard with them - but Chazal forbade her to wear them, in case she goes out with them in the street.

(b) The two exceptions (besides the various ornaments where we suspect that she may take them off in the street, to show them to her friends, and subsequently carry them), are the Kevul and the Pei'ah Nochris. These Chazal kept outside the decree, because a woman without any ornaments might become despised by her husband. Consequently, Chazal permitted her to wear them in the courtyard.

(c) According to Rav Anani bar Sason, a woman may wear all her ornaments in the courtyard.

(d) Rav Anani quoted this concession in the name of Rebbi Yishmael b'Rebbi Yossi, who was a Tana, and has the authority to argue with a Mishnah.

(a) The early Zekeinim explained the Pasuk "ve'ha'Davah be'Nidasah" to mean that a woman may not adorn herself or even put on make-up during her period of Nidus.

(b) Rebbi Akiva objected to this explanation on the grounds that make-up helps endear a woman to her husband; without it, she will come to be despised by him - and that is something which the Torah would never encourage.

(c) So he interprets the Pasuk to mean that a woman remains a Nidah - even after the initial seven days have passed (and she is no longer seeing blood) until she Tovels in a Mikveh.

Next daf


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