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


brought to you by Kollel Iyun Hadaf of Har Nof
Rosh Kollel: Rav Mordecai Kornfeld

Ask A Question about the Daf

Previous daf

Shabbos 64


OPINIONS: The Gemara says that Tum'as Erev (Tum'as Sheretz) should apply to additional objects to which Tum'as Mes does not apply because it is "Merubah" -- it is "more." What does this mean?
(a) RASHI explains that there are many *types of Tum'os* that last until the evening (Sheretz, Shichvas Zera, Maga Tum'as Mes, etc.), whereas only Tum'as Mes lasts seven days.

(b) RABEINU CHANANEL says that there are eight *types of Sheratzim* to which Tum'as Sheretz applies, while there is only one type of Mes.

(c) RASHBA cites RAV HAI GA'ON who says that Tum'as Sheretz is simply *more common*, since it is much more prevalent to become Tamei from a Sheretz than from a Mes.

QUESTION: The Gemara says that even horsetail hairs can become Tamei, and not only wool. The Gemara points out, however, that the verse from which we learn that horsetail hairs can become Tamei is written with regard to *Tum'as Sheretz*. We cannot learn that horsetail hairs can become Tamei with *Tum'as Mes* from the fact that they can become Tamei with Tum'as Sheretz, because Tum'as Sheretz is Metamei more objects since its Tum'ah is "Merubah" (see previous Insight).

The Gemara then teaches that there is a Gezeirah Shavah that compares Tum'as Mes to Tum'as Sheretz in order to teach that a Mes will also be Metamei horsetail hairs. Then the Gemara adds that this Gezeirah Shavah is "Mufnah" ("open"), because were it not Mufnah, it would not be clear that a Mes is Metamai horsetail hairs, but only a Sheretz can be Metamei horsetail hairs because Tum'as Sheretz is more severe in that it is Metamei b'k'Adashah (even a small amount of Sheretz, the size of a lentil, can be Metamei).

Why does the Gemara give a new reason why Tum'as Sheretz is more severe than Tum'as Mes? The Gemara earlier said that Tum'as Sheretz is *Merubah*, and that is why Tum'as Mes cannot be learned from Tum'as Sheretz. But now, the Gemara says that Tum'as Mes cannot be learned from Tum'as Sheretz because Tum'as Sheretz is Metamai b'k'Adashah. Why does the Gemara give two different reasons?


(a) The MAHARSHA explains that there is a difference between the two reasons that the Gemara gives concerning why the Halachos of Tum'as Mes cannot be learned from Tum'as Sheretz. The reason that says that Tum'as Sheretz is Metamei b'k'Adashah is stronger than the reason that says that Tum'as Sheretz is more common, because the reason of Metamei b'k'Adashah shows both that Tum'as Sheretz is more *common*, and it is more *severe*. Since the Gemara at this stage says that there is a Gezeirah Shavah, which is a strong Limud (and not a Binyan Av, which is weaker), the Gemara wanted to ask a stronger question on that Limud.

We might ask on the Maharsha's answer that if so, (1) why did the Gemara earlier not ask this stronger question, but instead asked the weaker question, and (2) the Gemara has not yet concluded that the Limud is a Gezeirah Shavah that is Mufnah, and thus the Limud at this stage should be no stronger than a Binyan Av!

(b) The TOSFOS HA'ROSH explains that the previous reason that Tum'as Mes cannot be learned from Tum'as Sheretz (because Tum'as Sheretz is Merubah) was not the real reason. Rather, the real reason is because Tum'as Sheretz is Metamai b'k'Adashah. The Gemara earlier was not relying on that reason, but was relying on the reason yet to come in the Gemara. (A Beraisa does not always reveal its true reasoning, but it keeps it hidden. The Gemara that explains the Beraisa tells us the true reasoning of the Beraisa.)


OPINIONS: The Mishnah says that a woman may go out on into Reshus ha'Rabim on Shabbos with hair tied around her hair, whether it is her own hair that is tied on or whether it is hair from someone else or from an animal.

Similarly, says the Mishnah, a woman may go into a Chatzer (but not into Reshus ha'Rabim) while wearing a Pe'ah Nachris (a wig). Rashi (here and in Erchin 7b) explains that the purpose of this wig is to give the appearance that the woman has a lot of hair.

(a) The SHILTEI GIBORIM proves from here that a woman is normally allowed to wear a wig in public, and that the Torah only requires her to cover the hair that is attached to her head. He explains that the Mishnah must be talking about married women, because the Gemara says that the reason she may wear certain articles, such as the wig, in a Chatzer is in order that she not become loathsome to her husband. This also shows that the wig is not covered (because otherwise her husband would not be able to see it).

(b) The BE'ER SHEVA (Teshuvah #18) quotes Rav Yehudah Katzenelenbogen who explains that according to Rashi -- who said that the purpose of a wig is to give the appearance that she has more hair -- it must be that she wears the wig the same way other women wear their natural hair, that is, covered. One may ask, what is the point of wearing a wig that is covered if even her husband cannot see her hair? The answer is that the wig gives her hair a fuller look from beneath the kerchief. If the purpose of the wig is to stuff the kerchief, why does the woman not simply stuff up her kerchief with wool? He answers that sometimes the kerchief slips from its place and the hair under it is visible, and it would be very embarrassing for wool to show up there instead of hair.

Second, Rav Yehudah Katzenelenbogen says that even if the Shiltei Giborim is correct that the wig is worn uncovered, perhaps it is only worn uncovered in a Chatzer (which is what the Mishnah is talking about) which very few people enter. In such a Chatzer where people do not commonly walk, it is permitted for a woman to go even with her natural hair uncovered, m'Ikar ha'Din. (NOTE: This explanation seems a bit forced, for the Rishonim make it clear that a Pe'ah Nachris cannot be worn in Reshus ha'Rabim *only* because of the Isur Tiltul, see Tosfos and Rishonim 57b DH Iy -M. Kornfeld)

Third, even if the Mishnah is talking about a Chatzer where many people do commonly walk, it is only talking about the laws of Shabbos, and is not discussing the laws of modesty and Das Yehudis. That is, from the perspective of the laws of Shabbos, she may go into a Chatzer with an uncovered wig (but from the perspective of the laws of Das Yehudis, she may not). He points out that this is similar to what the Rosh wrote in the beginning of Maseches Shabbos, at the end of 1:1, with regard to Lifnei Iver. (This also seems forced, since the *Rabanan* permitted the woman to wear the Pe'ah Nachris in order that she should not become loathsome to her husband, implying that it is a proper thing for a woman to do.)

We may suggest another reason why a woman wears a covered Pe'ah Nachris. The main purpose of the Pe'ah Nachris may be to appeal to her husband when in the house, where it is permitted to leave her hair uncovered. However, since it was complicated to put on and remove the wig of the Gemara (which may have not been as convenient to remove as today's wigs), the woman would often leave it on even in Reshus ha'Rabim, and cover it so as not to stand out.

In any case, Rav Katzenelenbogen concludes that wearing an uncovered wig is certainly forbidden.

HALACHAH: The MAGEN AVRAHAM (OC 75:5) sides with the Shiltei Giborim and permits wearing a wig. Today there are different practices among different communities regarding wearing wigs.
OPINIONS: The Mishnah here and earlier lists a number of decorative objects with which a woman may not go out into Reshus ha'Rabim (or, with most objects, even into a Chatzer) on Shabbos out of fear that she may carry them four Amos in Reshus ha'Rabim.

The Gemara quotes Rav, who rules like our Mishnah. The Gemara then cites another Tana from a Beraisa, Rebbi Anani bar Sason in the name of Rebbi Yishmael bar Rebbi Yosi, who permits going into a Chatzer with all of the things listed in the Mishnah. What is the Halachah? There are five opinions:

(a) The RAMBAN and RASHBA rule like the Mishnah, that it is prohibited to wear these items into a Chatzer. They add that a house is no different than a Chatzer, and thus it is prohibited for women to wear these items even within a house. They may, however, *carry* these items in a house or Chatzer, without wearing them.

(b) The RAMBAM (Hilchos Shabbos 19:8) also rules like Rav, that it is prohibited to wear these items into a Chatzer. However, he adds that it is only prohibited to wear them in a Chatzer sh'Eino Me'ureves, a Chatzer that needs an Eruv but does not have one. In a Chatzer Me'ureves (that has an Eruv) or in a house, a woman *may* wear these items.

(c) The TUR (OC 303) quotes RABEINU TAM who says that the Halachah is like Rav Anani, and it is permitted to wear these items even in a Chatzer that has no Eruv.

(d) The SEFER HA'TERUMAH (Rabeinu Baruch) cited by Tosfos and the Tur rules like Rav Anani and permits women to wear these items not only in a Chatzer that has no Eruv, but even in a Karmelis. Although Rav Anani does not mention Karmelis (implying that he forbids going into a Karmelis with these items), that was only in those days, when there were places which were Reshus ha'Rabim. In our day, though, there is no Reshus ha'Rabim, and therefore it is permitted to wear jewelry even into a Karmelis. (Objects that are actual burdens and are being carried may not be taken into a Karmelis, of course. The Terumah only permits going out with those things that a woman wears but might take off to show to her friends.) Therefore, a woman may wear these items anywhere today.

(e) RABEINU SHIMSHON cited by Tosfos and the Tur suggests another reason why women are permitted to walk out wearing jewelry today. In the days of the Mishnah and Gemara, women used to show off their jewelry. Nowadays (when women wear jewelry both on Shabbos and during the week) women do not usually take off their jewelry to show off to each other, so it is permitted to wear jewelry anywhere.

The ARUCH HA'SHULCHAN (303:22) adds that in our day, women are refined ("Chashuvos") and consider it beneath their dignity to remove their jewelry to show it off. Furthermore, in those days, the women did not go out often, and on the rare occasion that they went out, they would wear all their jewelry to show to their friends. Since women did not go to the synagogue, there was a serious concern that they would take off their jewelry in Reshus ha'Rabim to show to each other. In our day, the women go out often and meet each other in their homes or in the synagogue, and thus there is no fear that they will remove their jewelry in Reshus ha'Rabim to show to each other.

HALACHAH: The SHULCHAN ARUCH (OC 303:18) cites the first four opinions, and the REMA adds the fifth. The Shulchan Aruch also mentions the conclusion of TOSFOS (DH Rebbi Anani) and the ROSH (6:10), who say that it is better *not* to stop the women from wearing these items outside on Shabbos even if it is prohibited, because it is unlikely that they will listen and it is better that they transgress unknowingly than willfully.
Next daf


This article is provided as part of Shema Yisrael Torah Network
Permission is granted to redistribute electronically or on paper,
provided that this notice is included intact.
For information on subscriptions, archives, and other Shema Yisrael
Classes, send mail to daf@shemayisrael.co.il

Shema Yisrael Torah Network
Jerusalem, Israel

In the U.S.:
Tel. (908) 370-3344
Fax. (908) 367-6608

Toll free line for dedications: 1-800-574-2646