Objection #4: [Perhaps] one may go out with a Kemi'a only if it is covered with leather (for then, one may enter a Beis ha'Kisei with it)!

Question: Tefilin are covered with leather, yet one may not enter a Beis ha'Kisei with them!

(Beraisa): One who enters a Beis ha'Kisei removes his Tefilin four Amos before the Beis ha'Kisei.

Answer: One may not enter a Beis ha'Kisei with [head] Tefilin on account of the Shin (a letter of Hash-m's name 'Shakai', which is not covered):

(Abaye): A tradition from Moshe from Sinai mandates a [protrusion on the box of the head Tefilin shaped like a] Shin.

(Abaye): A tradition from Sinai mandates [making the knot in the strap of the head Tefilin to form] a 'Dalet'. (Tosfos deletes this and the next teaching from the text, because the Gemara (28B) learned that the boxes must be from a Kosher animal from the fact that the Shin is written from the box itself, but it needed a different source for the straps. Rashba (28B) disagrees - even though tradition requires the Dalet and Yud, they are mere knots, not writing.)

(Abaye): A tradition from Sinai mandates (Rashi - making the knot in the strap of the head Tefilin to form) a 'Yud'.

(Objection #4 stands; we do not resolve whether or not an uncovered Kemi'a may be taken into a Beis ha'Kisei.)

(Mishnah): One may not go out with Shiryon, Kasda or Magafayim.

Shiryon is armor;

(Rav): Kasda is a cap worn under a helmet; Magafayim are iron boots.

(Mishnah - R. Meir): A woman may not go out wearing the following; if she did, she is Chayeves Chatas:

A needle with a hole, a ring with a stamp, Kuliyar, Koveles (these will be explained), or a flask of [fragrant] balsam oil.

Chachamim exempt regarding Koveles or a flask of balsam oil.

(Gemara - Ula): The law of a man is opposite [regarding a ring, he is liable only for a ring without a stamp].

Inference: Ula holds that anything fitting for a man (it is a garment or Tachshit for him) is not fitting for a woman (it is a load for her), and vice-versa.

Question (Rav Yosef - Beraisa): Shepherds may go out in Sak (sackcloth);

Anyone is allowed - [Chachamim mentioned shepherds because] it is common for them to go out with Sak.

Answer (Rav Yosef): Ula holds that women are a nation unto themselves (utterly different from men - but anything fitting for some men [or women] is fitting for anyone [of that gender]).

Question (Abaye - Beraisa): If one finds Tefilin [in a place where they are prone to be disgraced], he brings them into the city [by wearing them] one pair at a time, whether the finder is a man or woman.

Women cannot be a nation unto themselves [for then they could not wear Tefilin just because it is fitting for men, it would be a load for them]! Tefilin are not intrinsically fitting for women, since it is Mitzvas Ase sheha'Zeman Grama (a positive Mitzvah that applies only at certain times), they are exempt from such Mitzvos,

Answer: R. Meir holds that [the Mitzvah of] Tefilin applies at night and on Shabbos, therefore it is she'Lo ha'Zeman Grama, such Mitzvos apply to women.

Question: Why is one liable for wearing a ring [that is not fitting] - this is not the normal way to carry!

Answer #1 (R. Yirmeyah): The Mishnah discusses a female Gizbar (treasurer, it is normal for her to wear a ring with a stamp).

Objection: (Rabah): You explain how a woman is liable for a ring with a stamp, but not how a man is liable for a ring without a stamp!

Answer #2 (Rava): Sometimes each wears a ring normally worn by the other gender, i.e. a man gives his ring to his wife to put away, she wears it home; a woman gives her ring to her husband to bring to a repairman, he wears it on the way.

(Mishnah): [She may not go out with] Kuliyar or Koveles...

(Rav): Kuliyar is a clasp worn around the neck (it passes through the openings of her garment to keep it closed - Rashi; Aruch - it is a crown).

(Rav and Rav Asi): Koveles is spices bound together.

(Beraisa #1 - R. Meir): A woman may not go out with Koveles; if she did, she is Chayeves Chatas;

Chachamim say, she may not go out with it; if she did, she is exempt;

R. Eliezer permits her to go out with it.

Question: What do they argue about?

Answer: R. Meir considers it a load;

Chachamim consider it a Tachshit - they forbid lest she will take it off to show it, and come to carry it;

R. Eliezer also considers it a Tachshit - he is not concerned lest she show it off, for it is worn to cover up body odor, she does not want people to know that she needs it.

Contradiction (Beraisa #2 - R. Eliezer): She is exempt for Koveles or a flask of balsam oil (this implies that he forbids)!

Resolution: In Beraisa #1, R. Eliezer responds to Chachamim, who forbid and exempt b'Diavad - therefore, he says that she is permitted;

In Beraisa #2, R. Eliezer responds to R. Meir, who obligates - therefore, he says 'She is exempt' for parallel structure.

Question: Where do we find that R. Eliezer responds to R. Meir?

Answer (Beraisa - R. Meir): A woman may not go out with a key in her hand; if she did, she is Chayeves Chatas;

R. Eliezer exempts for Koveles or a flask of balsam oil.

Interjection: R. Meir did not discuss Koveles!

Answer: The Beraisa is abbreviated, it means as follows:

R. Meir also forbids her to go out with Koveles or a flask of balsam oil; if she did, she is Chayeves Chatas;

R. Eliezer exempts for Koveles or a flask of balsam oil.

(Continuation of Beraisa): R. Eliezer exempts if there are spices in the Koveles - but if it is empty, she is liable.

Inference (Rav Ada bar Ahavah): This teaches that if someone was Motzi (took from Reshus ha'Yachid to Reshus ha'Rabim) food in a Kli, and the food was less than the Shi'ur to be Chayav, he is liable for the Kli!

This is because a Koveles without spices has just a remnant of fragrance, this is like less than a Shi'ur of food!

Rejection (Rav Ashi): Perhaps one who was Motzi food less than a Shi'ur in a Kli is exempt, because the Kli is Batul to the food - but Koveles cannot be Batul to a remnant of fragrance, since smell has no substance!

(Rav Yehudah): "V'Reishis Shemanim Yimshachu" - this refers to balsam (the choicest oil).

Question (Rav Yosef - Beraisa): R. Yehudah ben Bava decreed even against balsam oil [after the Churban] - Chachamim did not agree;

If it is for indulgence, Chachamim would have agreed!

Counter-question (Abaye): You assume that every matter of indulgence was forbidden - this is not so!

(R. Ami or R. Asi): "Ha'Shosim b'Mizrekei Yayin" - this is Kenishkin (a Kli with two [or more] mouths, enabling people to drink together; alternatively, wine is thrown from one end to the other when it is tilted);

(The other of R. Ami and R. Asi): They used to throw their cups one to another [when drinking; Rashi - they would juggle them].

Nevertheless, Rabah bar Rav Huna saw the Reish Galusa drink from Kenishkin, and he did not comment (this shows that it was not forbidden)!

Answer to both questions (Abaye): Rather, Chachamim only decreed against indulgence which also brings Simchah.

(R. Yosi b'Rebbi Chanina): "Ha'Shochvim Al Mitos Shen u'Sruchim Al Arsosam" - they would urinate naked in front of their beds (they would not bother to go outside).

Objection (R. Avahu): We cannot say that for this "Yiglu b'Rosh Golim (they will be the first to be exiled)"!

(R. Avahu): Rather, they would eat and drink together, stick their beds together and swap wives; making their beds stink with others' semen.

(R. Avahu): Three things cause poverty - urinating in front of one's bed while naked, disgracing Netilas Yadayim (washing the hands before eating) and making his wife curse him in his presence.

(Rava): Urinating in front of one's bed while naked is problematic only if he faces the bed - if he turns away, it is fine;

Even facing the bed is problematic only if he urinates on the ground - if he urinates into a Kli, it is fine;

(Rava): Disgracing Netilas Yadayim is problematic only if he did not wash at all - if he washed minimally, it is fine.

Rejection: This is wrong!

(Rav Chisda): I pour generous handfuls over my hands, and Hash-m fills my handfuls with goodness.

(Rava): 'Making his wife curse him in his presence' refers to one who does not give her money for cosmetics;

It is problematic only if he has money but refuses to give to her.

(Rava brei d'Rav Ilai): "Ya'an Ki Gavhu Benos Tziyon" - they (married women) would walk erect;

"Va'Telachnah Netuyos Garon" - they walked heel to toe [tiny steps, like one who sticks out his neck and faces up and cannot see where he walks; this was to allow men more time to look at them];

"U'Meshakros Einayim" - they would paint their eyes and wink [at single men];

"Haloch v'Tafof" - a tall woman would walk next to a short woman [to make a more impressive appearance];

(Rav Yitzchak d'vei R. Ami):"Uv'Ragleihem Te'akasnah" - they would put fragrances in their shoes, and kick the ground near unmarried men, spraying the scent to arouse their lust like the venom in Ka'os (an angry snake).

Question: How were these women punished?

Answer (Rabah bar Ula): "V'Hayah Sachas Bosem Mak Yihyeh" - the place where they would perfume themselves will melt;

"V'Sachas Chagurah Nikpah" - where they would gird themselves with pretty belts, it will be full of wounds;

"V'Sachas Ma'aseh Mikshah Karchah" - where they would adorn their hair, it will be full of bald patches;

"V'Sachas Pesigil Machagores Sak" - their openings (Ervah) that led to joy will be girded with sackcloth.

(Rava): "Ki Sachas Yofi" - in place of beauty will be pus.

(R. Yosi b'Rebbi Chanina): "V'Sipach Hash-m Kodkod Benos Tziyon" - they were stricken by Tzara'as, about which it says "...Vela'Sapachas".

(Rav or Shmuel): "Va'Shem Pasehen Ye'areh" - blood [of Zivah] poured out of their openings;

(The other of Rav and Shmuel): Their openings became like a Ya'ar (forest, i.e. full of hair and hence despised for relations).