כְּדַעֲבַד לֵיהּ רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא לִדְבֵיתְהוּ.

like the one that Rabbi Akiva made for his wife.

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: לֹא תֵּצֵא אִשָּׁה בְּעִיר שֶׁל זָהָב, וְאִם יָצְתָה – חַיֶּיבֶת חַטָּאת, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: לֹא תֵּצֵא, וְאִם יָצְתָה – פְּטוּרָה. רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: יוֹצְאָה אִשָּׁה בְּעִיר שֶׁל זָהָב לְכַתְּחִלָּה.

And on this subject, the Sages taught in the Tosefta : A woman may not go out into the public domain on Shabbat with a city of gold ornament. And if she went out with it into the public domain she is liable to bring a sin-offering; that is the statement of Rabbi Meir. And the Rabbis say: She may not go out with it ab initio , and if she went out she is exempt. And Rabbi Eliezer says: A woman may go out with a city of gold ornament ab initio .

בְּמַאי קָמִיפַּלְגִי? רַבִּי מֵאִיר סָבַר: מַשּׂוֹי הוּא, וְרַבָּנַן סָבְרִי: תַּכְשִׁיט הוּא, דִּילְמָא שָׁלְפָא וּמַחְוַיָּא לֵיהּ וְאַתְיָא לְאַתּוֹיֵי. וְרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר סָבַר: מַאן דַּרְכָּהּ לְמֵיפַּק בְּעִיר שֶׁל זָהָב – אִשָּׁה חֲשׁוּבָה, וְאִשָּׁה חֲשׁוּבָה לָא מְשַׁלְּפָא וּמַחְוַיָּא.

The Gemara explains: With regard to what principle do they disagree? Rabbi Meir holds that it is considered a burden and not an ornament, and one who carries a burden into the public domain is liable to bring a sin-offering. And the Rabbis hold that it is an ornament. Why, then, did they prohibit going out into the public domain wearing it? They are concerned lest she remove it, and show it to another, and come to carry it in the public domain. And Rabbi Eliezer holds: Whose manner is it to go out with a city of gold ornament? Only an important woman, and in that case there is no concern, as an important woman does not remove ornaments and show them to others.

כְּלִילָא, רַב אָסַר וּשְׁמוּאֵל שָׁרֵי.

After discussing going out into the public domain on Shabbat with a city of gold ornament, the Gemara discusses other ornaments. There is a dispute among amora’im with regard to a kelila , which is a tiara-like ornament. Rav prohibited going out with it, and Shmuel permitted doing so.

דְּאַנִיסְכָא – כּוּלֵּי עָלְמָא לָא פְּלִיגִי דְּאָסוּר, כִּי פְּלִיגִי – דְּאַרוֹקְתָא. מָר סָבַר: אַנִיסְכָא עִקָּר, וְמָר סָבַר: אַרוֹקְתָא עִקָּר.

The Gemara sets the parameters of the disagreement: With a kelila made of metal, everyone agrees that it is prohibited to go out into the public domain. Where they disagree is in the case of a woven fabric inlaid with metal. One Sage, Rav, holds that in that type of ornament the metal is the primary element, and it is prohibited. And one Sage, Shmuel, holds that the woven fabric is the primary element, and it is consequently permitted.

רַב אַשִׁי מַתְנֵי לְקוּלָא: דְּאַרוֹקְתָא – דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא לֹא פְּלִיגִי דִּשְׁרִי, כִּי פְּלִיגִי – דְּאַנִיסְכָא, מָר סָבַר: דִּילְמָא שָׁלְפָא וּמַחְוַיָּא וְאָתֵי לְאַתּוֹיֵי, וְמָר סָבַר: מַאן דַּרְכָּהּ לְמֵיפַּק בִּכְלִילָא – אִשָּׁה חֲשׁוּבָה, וְאִשָּׁה חֲשׁוּבָה לָא שָׁלְפָא וּמַחְוַיָּא.

Rav Ashi taught this disagreement with a lenient interpretation, as he said: With a kelila of woven fabric, everyone agrees that it is permitted to go out into the public domain. Where they disagree is in the case of a metal ornament. One Sage, Rav, holds that it is prohibited because there is concern lest she remove it, and show it to another, and come to carry it in the public domain. And one Sage, Shmuel, holds that it is permitted. Whose manner is to go out with a kelila ornament? Only an important woman; and an important woman does not remove ornaments and show them to others.

אָמַר לֵיהּ רַב שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר בַּר חָנָה לְרַב יוֹסֵף: בְּפֵרוּשׁ אֲמַרְתְּ לָן מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרַב: “כְּלִילָא שְׁרִי״.

On the same topic, Rav Shmuel bar bar Ḥana said to Rav Yosef who, due to illness, forgot his learning: You explicitly said to us in the name of Rav: With regard to a kelila , it is permitted to go out into the public domain on Shabbat.

אֲמַרוּ לֵיהּ לְרַב: אֲתָא גַּבְרָא רַבָּה אֲרִיכָא לִנְהַרְדְּעָא וּמִטְלַע, וְדָרַשׁ: כְּלִילָא שְׁרִי. אֲמַר: מַאן גַּבְרָא רַבָּה אֲרִיכָא [דְּאִיטְלַע] – לֵוִי. שְׁמַע מִינָּהּ: נָח נַפְשֵׁיהּ דְּרַבִּי אָפֵס, וִיתֵיב רַבִּי חֲנִינָא בְּרֵישָׁא, וְלָא הֲוָה לֵיהּ אִינִישׁ לְלֵוִי לְמֵיתַב גַּבֵּיהּ, וְקָאָתֵי לְהָכָא.

The Gemara relates that one day they said to Rav: A great, tall man came to Neharde’a and he was limping. And he taught: With a kelila , it is permitted to go out into the public domain on Shabbat. Rav said: Who is a great, tall man who limps? Levi. Conclude from this that Rabbi Afes passed away and Rabbi Ḥanina is sitting at the head of the yeshiva in Eretz Yisrael in his place. And, consequently, Levi had no one before whom to sit and study and he came here. As long as Rabbi Afes headed the yeshiva, Rabbi Ḥanina would sit outside the study hall. Entering the study hall would indicate that he accepted the authority of Rabbi Afes. Rabbi Ḥanina, who was a great man, refused to do so. In deference to Rabbi Ḥanina, Levi would sit with him as a colleague outside the study hall. When Levi arrived from Eretz Yisrael, it was clear that Rabbi Afes must have died. Levi, who considered himself Rabbi Ḥanina’s equal in terms of both scholarship and age, did not want to defer to Rabbi Ḥanina’s authority and decided to go to elsewhere, to Babylonia.

וְדִילְמָא נָח נַפְשֵׁיהּ דְּרַבִּי חֲנִינָא, וְרַבִּי אָפֵס כִּדְקָאֵי קָאֵי, וְלָא הֲוָה לֵיהּ אִינִישׁ לְלֵוִי לְמֵיתַב גַּבֵּיהּ, וְקָאָתֵי לְהָכָא? אִם אִיתָא דְּרַבִּי חֲנִינָא שְׁכִיב – לֵוִי לְרַבִּי אָפֵס מֵיכַּף הֲוָה כַּיִיף לֵיהּ. וְתוּ, דְּרַבִּי חֲנִינָא לָא סַגִּי דְּלָא מָלֵיךְ. דְּכִי הֲוָה קָא נִיחָא נַפְשֵׁיהּ דְּרַבִּי, אֲמַר: חֲנִינָא בְּרַבִּי חָמָא יָתֵיב בְּרֹאשׁ. וּכְתִיב בְּהוּ בְּצַדִּיקִים: “וְתִגְזַר אֹמֶר וְיָקָם לָךְ וגו׳״.

The Gemara asks: How did Rav arrive at that particular conclusion? And perhaps Rabbi Ḥanina died and Rabbi Afes remained standing in his position at the head of the yeshiva as he stood previously; and Levi had no one with whom to sit outside the study hall, and that is why he came here? The Gemara answers that that could not be the case for two reasons. First, if it were so, that Rabbi Ḥanina died, Levi would have been subject to the authority of Rabbi Afes. It was only in deference to Rabbi Ḥanina that Levi did not enter the study hall. And furthermore, it could not be that Rabbi Ḥanina died and did not reign as head of the yeshiva, as when Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi died, he said in his dying testament: Ḥanina, son of Rabbi Ḥama, shall sit at the head of the yeshiva. And of the righteous it is written: “You will decree a saying and it will be established for you, and the light will shine on your ways” (Job 22:28). Since the statement that Rabbi Ḥanina will serve at the head of the yeshiva crossed the lips of a righteous person, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, it is inconceivable that it would not have been realized.

דָּרַשׁ לֵוִי בִּנְהַרְדְּעָא: כְּלִילָא שְׁרִי, נְפֵיק עֶשְׂרִין וְאַרְבַּע כְּלִילֵי מִכּוּלָּהּ נְהַרְדְּעָא. דְּרַשׁ רַבָּה בַּר אֲבוּהּ בִּמְחוֹזָא כְּלִילָא שְׁרִי, וּנְפַקוּ תְּמָנֵי סְרֵי כְּלִילֵי מֵחֲדָא מָבוֹאָה.

The Gemara returns to the subject of kelila . When Levi taught in Neharde’a that with the kelila ornament, one is permitted to go out into the public domain on Shabbat, twenty-four women wearing the kelila ornament went out into the public domain from all of Neharde’a. When Rabba bar Avuh taught in Meḥoza that the kelila ornament is permitted, eighteen women wearing the kelila ornament went out from one alleyway. Meḥoza was a wealthy mercantile city, and many women there owned precious jewelry.

אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב שְׁמוּאֵל: קַמְרָא שְׁרִי. אִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי: דְּאַרוֹקְתָא, וְאָמַר רַב סָפְרָא – מִידֵּי דַּהֲוָה אַטַּלִּית מוּזְהֶבֶת.

Rav Yehuda said that Rav Shmuel said: With a precious gilded belt [ kamra ], a woman is permitted to go out into the public domain on Shabbat. Some say that he was referring to a belt made of woven fabric and inlaid with gold. And Rav Safra said: It is permitted just as it is permitted in the case of a gilded cloak.

וְאִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי: דְּאַנִיסְכָא, וְאָמַר רַב סָפְרָא: מִידֵּי דַּהֲוָה אָאַבְנֵט שֶׁל מְלָכִים.

And some say that it is referring to a belt made entirely of metal. And Rav Safra said: It is permitted just as it is permitted to go out into the public domain on Shabbat with the belt of kings made entirely of gold.

אָמַר לֵיהּ רָבִינָא לְרַב אַשִׁי: קַמְרָא עִילָּוֵי הֶמְיָינָא מַאי? אָמַר לֵיהּ: תְּרֵי הֶמְיָינֵי קָאָמְרַתְּ!

Ravina said to Rav Ashi: With regard to going out with a gilded belt over another belt [ hemyana ], what is the halakha ? He said to him: Two belts you said; it is certainly uncommon to wear two belts. Therefore, one of them is a burden.

אֲמַר רַב אַשִׁי: הַאי רַסוּקָא, אִי אִית לֵיהּ מַפְרַחַיְיתָא – שְׁרִי, וְאִי לָא – אֲסִיר.

Rav Ashi said: This short cloak; if it has short straps with which to tie it, it is permitted to go out with it, and if not, it is prohibited.

“וְלֹא בְּקַטְלָא״. מַאי קַטְלָא? מַנְקְטָא פָּארֵי. “נְזָמִים״ – נִזְמֵי הָאַף.

We learned in the mishna: And a woman may not go out on Shabbat with a katla . The Gemara explains: What is a katla ? A type of small bib hung from the neck. The nezamim mentioned in the mishna with which a woman may not go out on Shabbat refer to nose rings, not earrings.

“וְלֹא בְּטַבַּעַת שֶׁאֵין עָלֶיהָ חוֹתָם״ הָא יֵשׁ עָלֶיהָ חוֹתָם – חַיֶּיבֶת, אַלְמָא: לָאו תַּכְשִׁיט הוּא.

We learned in the mishna: Nor with a ring that has no seal on it. By inference: If it does have a seal on it, she is liable to bring a sin-offering. She is only exempt from bringing a sacrifice when she goes out with a ring that does not have a seal on it, which is an ornament; however, a ring with a seal on it, typically used by men for sealing documents, is considered a burden for a woman on Shabbat. Apparently, that ring is not an ornament.

וּרְמִינְהוּ: תַּכְשִׁיטֵי נָשִׁים טְמֵאִים, וְאֵלּוּ הֵן תַּכְשִׁיטֵי נָשִׁים: קַטְלָאוֹת, נְזָמִים, וְטַבָּעוֹת. וְטַבַּעַת בֵּין שֶׁיֵּשׁ עָלֶיהָ חוֹתָם בֵּין שֶׁאֵין עָלֶיהָ חוֹתָם. וְנִזְמֵי הָאַף.

The Gemara raises a contradiction from a mishna in tractate Kelim : Women’s ornaments can become ritually impure. And these are women’s ornaments: Bibs; earrings; and rings; and a ring whether it has a seal on it or whether it does not have a seal on it; and nose rings. Apparently, even a ring that has a seal on it is considered a woman’s ornament.

וְאָמַר רַבִּי זֵירָא: לֹא קַשְׁיָא; הָא – רַבִּי נְחֶמְיָה, הָא – רַבָּנַן.

And Rabbi Zeira said: This is not difficult. Rather, this ruling in our mishna, which distinguishes between a ring with a seal and a ring without a seal, is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Neḥemya; that ruling in the mishna in tractate Kelim , which does not distinguish between rings, is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis.

דְּתַנְיָא: הִיא שֶׁל מַתֶּכֶת וְחוֹתָמָהּ שֶׁל אַלְמוֹג – טְמֵאָה, הִיא שֶׁל אַלְמוֹג וְחוֹתָמָהּ שֶׁל מַתֶּכֶת – טְהוֹרָה, וְרַבִּי נְחֶמְיָה מְטַמֵּא. שֶׁהָיָה רַבִּי נְחֶמְיָה אוֹמֵר: בְּטַבַּעַת – הַלֵּךְ אַחַר חוֹתָמָהּ, בְּעוֹל – הַלֵּךְ אַחַר סִמְלוֹנָיו,

As it was taught in a baraita : If the ring were made of metal and its seal was made of coral, it can become ritually impure because the primary component of the ring is metal, a material that can become ritually impure. If the ring were made of coral and its seal of metal, it is ritually pure and cannot become ritually impure. Rabbi Neḥemya deems it ritually impure, as Rabbi Neḥemya would say: With regard to a ring, follow its seal; if the seal were made of material that can become ritually impure, the entire ring can become ritually impure, and if it were made of material that cannot become ritually impure, the entire ring remains pure. The same is true with regard to a yoke of an animal: Follow its rods. Rods are placed in the yoke to fasten it to the animal; the component material of the rods determines whether or not the entire yoke can become ritually impure.