Daf 57

1) A woman can't go out on Shabbos with strings of wool and linen in her hair. The reason it's forbidden: since it's a Chatzitza regarding Toiveling in the Mikvah, she might need to Toivel, and she would remove these Chatzitzos to Toivel, and she'll end up not tying it back on afterwards and will carry it four Amos in a Reshus Harabim. [Tosfos adds: if she braids these strings in her hair, it's permitted. After all, there is a rabbinical prohibition to braid on Shabbos since it's like building, so logic dictates that there is a rabbinical prohibition to unbraid it. Since it's forbidden to unbraid your hair to remove the strings, you don't need to worry she'll remove it to Toivel.

Also, we only have this problem by items that are not her main clothing, which she might carry home during the week. However, she doesn't need to worry about her cloak, since she won't forget to wear it before she leaves the Mikva, since she never walks out without it.

Also, she only needs to worry about the items mentioned that are forbidden. However, items that are not forbidden, she may take off in the street on Shabbos. After all, if she remembers at that moment that it's Shabbos, she won't come to carry it. if she doesn't remember it's Shabbos, what good is it to prohibit her to take it off if she's not aware that it's Shabbos and, therefore, not aware that she needs to keep that enactment.]

2) Braided strings and other woven clothes are permitted to wear on Shabbos. The first version is: R' Huna b. R' Yehoshua says a rule that all woven items are permitted. Another version: it's permitted since we see that women don't care to remove it by Teveila. The practical difference between the two versions: if that woven item is dirtied in mud. Although the mud is not a Chatzitza, since the water can penetrate, but she cares that the mud shouldn't dirty her as she leaves the Mikvah. Therefore, it's permitted according to the first version since he permits woven clothes in all cases. However, according to the second version, it makes a difference whether she cares about it, and here, she cares.

3) R' Yehuda permits wearing wool strings since it doesn't Chotzeitz. Everyone agrees that you may put strands of different hair in your hair, because they don't Chotzeitz.

4) These strands are only forbidden when they're tied to her hair, but not to her neck. We can't say that it can't be a Chatzitza. After all if they're Chotzeitz when tied to a hard substance like hair, they're, of course, Chotzietz when tied on a soft item like a neck. Rather, the reason it's permitted since a woman wouldn't choke herself to make it too tight.

[Tosfos points out that this idea that soft items are a bigger Chatzitza is only when the hard object is tied on a soft object. However, R' Yehuda allows wool strings on the hair since it's not Chotzeitz, which is soft on hard, although he agrees to forbid linen on hair which is also hard on hard. Also we see that hair on hair is permitted to everyone even though it's also hard on hard.]

5) However, a choker is forbidden, since she wants it to press against her to give her a fuller body, therefore it's Chotzeitz, (and it's designed with wide straps to prevent choking), and she'll take it off by a Teveila. [Tosfos says: however, we don't need to worry that she'll take it off to show her friends since she'll loose her fuller body if she does. However, we'll find later a type of choker that's not tightly pressed against her, but is only made to beautify. Therefore, it's not forbidden to wear on Shabbos because she might take it off for Teviela, but it's forbidden since she might take it off to show a friend.]

6) You can't go out with different ornaments that are not sewn into the head covering (and we're afraid you'll take it off to show a friend) like a 'Totefes' that is worn on the forehead going from ear to ear, or a 'Sarvitin' that wraps around the head until the cheeks. The poor make them out of colored strands and the rich make them from gold and silver.

7) You can't go out with a 'Kabul' to the street, but you may wear it in a courtyard. R' Shimon b. Elazar says that you can wear it in the street since it's below the hairnet that she won't expose in the street. R' Avohu defines 'Kabul' as a woolen cap [Tosfos: and they allowed it in the courtyard so that she has something to wear there so she shouldn't become unattractive to her husband.]

8) We also see that you can't go out with an 'Istama' (a item that a woman wraps around hairs that stick out of her hair covering) into a Reshus Harabim. We learned: it's not a problem of Shatnez. [Rashi explains: because it's not spun. Tosfos argues since it's still rabbinically forbidden, like felt is rabbinically forbidden even though it's not spun, because it was carded. Rather, it's because it's hard material which is permitted by rabbinical Shatnez, like here where it's not spun, and regarding laying on top of Shatnez. (In matter of fact, you can even lay on soft Shatnez if it's not common to wrap your finger around a thread, like by donkey blankets, pillows and mattresses.) However, you can't wear hard Torah-prohibited Shatnez, therefore the Kohanim are considered wearing Shatnez in their Bigdei Kehuna despite that it's made from hard material.] It doesn't become Tamai with Tzaras. [Tosfos says: this implies that it becomes Tamai through other Tumos. Although it doesn't get Tumah Tzaras because it's not a cloth; still it can become Tamai by a corpse or rodent since it can become Tamai by Medris (since people may put it under them to sit) and we have a Kal V'chomer that, everything that can become Tamai Medris can become Tamai from a corpse and a rodent. The Aruch defines it as a cloth that's setted with stones. It's not Tamai by Tzaras since the cloth is not the main part, but is Tamai by a corpse and rodents since it's an ornament. Also, for this reason, that it's not mainly a cloth, it doesn't have a problem of Shatnez.] R' Shimon says that it's not forbidden for a bride to wear and it's not forbidden for the enactment of not wearing a bridle crown after the Beis Hamikdash's destruction.

9) [Tosfos says: it's forbidden to have swatches of wool sewn in a linen blanket, since the sewing attaches the swatches to the linen. However, it's permitted if it's stuffed with wool fleece, since the sewing only attaches the two sides of the linen blanket.]

Daf 58

10) However, Shmuel holds that the 'Kabul' is a slave's ownership sign. [Tosfos says: they permit it in the courtyard so that his master shouldn't be upset with him. After all, if he doesn't wear any sign of his ownership even in the courtyard, he'll think that the slave is rebelling.] However, this is only if the slave made it for himself, since he might come to take it off; [Tosfos: and still the master would be upset if he didn't even wear this, thus they allowed it in the courtyard.] However, if the owner made it, he can only wear it on his neck (since the master made it, he's to afraid to take it off), but not on his clothes. After all, it might break off, and he'll lift his clothing to block the area it was on so it shouldn't look that he purposely cut it off. [Tosfos: if he would walk with that area revealed his master would be extremely upset at him since it looks that he did it purposely to rebel against him.] After all, anyone who folds up his clothing is Chayiv for carrying on Shabbos.

We only allow it around his neck if it's made from mud that the master doesn't care for him to bring back the broken pieces, but not if it's made from metal, since he might carry the broken pieces four Amos in a Reshus Harabim.

11) You can't walk out with bells around your neck, since it might break and you'll come to carry it four Amos in a Reshus Harabim. [Tosfos explains: this is only referring to a regular bell, but we allow princes to go out with a golden and silver bell that's fastened with a silver chain, since they make sure to fasten them well to make sure they don't lose it.] However, they may wear one that's attached to they're clothes, as we said; the rabbis never forbade on anything woven that it will break off. [Tosfos says: although we forbade the slave's sign that's attached to his clothes which is woven; that's because we're only lenient by a bell or other ornaments that we shouldn't need to destroy every ornament from clothes to wear on Shabbos. However, the slave sign is not an ornament, and that's why not every clothes possess one. Thus, they forbade even those that were woven on because you'll might come to permit those that weren't woven on. Therefore, when they forbade earlier (a metal sign) when it's worn on the neck, it's even if it's on a woven piece that won't fall off unless you rip it.]

12) An animal can't go out on Shabbos with a bell or sign in any case; whether it's on its clothing or around its neck. [Tosfos explains: since it looks as if it's going to be sold at the market.] The signs and bells without a clanger aren't susceptible to Tumah since it's a utensil that facilitates an animal. However, the bell's susceptible to Tumah if it has a clanger. [Tosfos explains: since it now facilitates a human, by letting him know where his animal is. However, just because of the fact that it makes noise doesn't make it susceptible to Tumah if you don't need the noise. As we'll see later that the chains that clang are not susceptible to Tumah because of the noise it makes.]

13) The same applies to bells of mortars (that sound helps to fatten the spices), and of cribs (that soothes the baby to sleep), and of covers to Sefarim (to call the children to the classroom); if they don't have a clanger, their Tahor. However, it's not true on the clothing of an adult since it's an ornament.

14) A bell attached to a door is not susceptible to Tumah. However, if you have an animal bell with a clanger that's susceptible to Tumah, if you attach it to a door, it's still Tamai since it doesn't lose it unless you do an action to change it. [Tosfos says: although we say that a sheet that's made into a curtain is not susceptible anymore to Medris (since it's not made to sit on); we must say that it refers only after you did something to it to make it into a curtain. Although we said that a turban that's given over to be a mantle for a Sefer Torah is not susceptible to Medris, we can say it applies even if you didn't do anything to it. The very fact that it becomes forbidden to have any personal use from it anymore is enough to make it equivalent to an action changing it.]

15) If they once had a clanger and it was removed, it's still susceptible to Tumah. It can't be because a layman can return the clanger. After all, we have cases of removable scissor blades and a removable blade to a plane that they're considered rabbinicaly attached when they're not at work. This implies that, if they're actually detached, they're not Tamai at all even though a layman can put it back together.

Daf 59

16) Rather, Rava and R' Yochanan say that reason is; since it's easy to clang it with an earthenware shard. [Rashi says that it only retains Tumah that it received when it had the clanger and is not susceptible to Tumah from this time and on. Tosfos explains his reasoning: we know that it's not susceptible before the clanger was put in, therefore, it shouldn't be susceptible after the clanger was taken out since it's no better than if it was never in there in the first place. However, Tosfos says that it's only not susceptible before the clanger was originally put in since it's an unfinished utensil. However, this bell was finished, but just broken, so it never lost it's status of being a utensil (if you can clang it with a shard). This is similar to a sack that's not fully sewn that it's not susceptible to Tumah even if the hole is not big enough to let out a pomegranate, although a ripped sack is susceptible as long as the hole is not big enough for a pomegranate to fall out.

However, to say that it doesn't lose its original Tumah (but doesn't receive Tumah), you don't need it to do any service, since the very fact that a layman can put it back together makes it keep its old Tumah. As we see the Gemara in Brachos says that a bed that's taken apart still keeps its old Tumah since you can put it together, as long as you don't lose any of its parts.]

R' Yossi b. Chanina says: because you can use the empty bell to give a child a drink of water. [Tosfos explains: since a layman can fix it, it's susceptible to Tumah for the smallest things, like that you can give a child to drink with it, even if you haven't designate it for this purpose. (We need to say that he didn't designate it to drink, because if he did, then nobody would argue and everyone will hold that it would make it into a utensil to drink).]

17) R' Yochanan is consistent to his opinion that, the same way that we say by Tumas Medris that, if it's not designated for sitting, but for some other use, it's not susceptible to Medris since, if someone sits on it, someone will tell him "get up and let us do the work it's meant to do." So too by other Tumos, like for a corpse, it can't be susceptible because it's fit for a different work since someone will say "get up and let us do our work" [Tosfos explains: stop giving to drink with it, I need to return the clanger in order to do it's work]. Therefore, you need to be able to do something with the broken utensil similar to its original job. However R' Elazar says that we don't say that by Tumah of a corpse.

18) Similarly, we find R' Yochanan holding that we have the concept of "get up and let us do the work it's meant to do" by a Tumah of a corpse from the following argument why a metal horse sandal is susceptible to Tumah. [Tosfos explains why only metal: since the animal destroys the wooden ones. However the Rash's text is that it's two cases; horse's sandals and a metal sandal of someone who makes lime.] Rav explains: since it's possible to drink water from it. R' Chanina says because you can use it to smear oil during the war (where you only have this as an applier). However, Rav held that this is not a proper use, since it's not usual to smear oil during a war. The practical difference between them is if the sandal is disgusting, that it's no longer fit to drink, but it's still fit for smearing. However, R' Yochanan says that it's only Tamai because it's fit for a human to put on to flee in a war, so that he can run over thorns. The practical difference between him and the others: if the sandal is too heavy to be able to run away in it. (However, he doesn't hold of the other reasons, since it's a change in its normal use, i.e., to use it as a sandal, we'll say "get up and let us do the work it's meant to do.") [Tosfos asks: if so, like R' Yochanan, it should be also Tamai Medris since it's meant for humans to walk on, and the Tosefta says that it's not Tamai Medris.]

19) [Tosfos explains: we must say that they were designated for those uses as a secondary function, or else, since it was never made to be a utensil that's susceptible to Tumah, then it should have the same Halacha as a bell that never had a clanger, which is not susceptible to Tumah even if it's fit for other uses like to clang with a shard, or drink from it. However, R' Yochanan holds; if its designation for a secondary function is not for the same use as its main function, you say that it can't be a true designation because you can say "get up and let us do the work it's mainly meant to do."]

20) If someone's wearing a "golden city," R' Meir says it's like carrying and she's Chayiv a Chatos. [Rashi explains it to be a golden plate that has an image of Yerushalayim stamped on it. Tosfos disagrees since the Gemara in Sotah calls it a bride's crown.] The Chachumim argue and say that it's an ornament (and is not carrying) and you're exempt if you wear it, but you're rabbinically forbidden to do so (since you might take it off to show a friend). R' Elazar allows wearing it L'chatchila. After all, it's only common for a prominent lady to wear one, and prominent ladies have dignity, and don't take off their jewelery to show their friends. [Tosfos explains: this only applies to items like a "city of gold" that only prominent ladies wear. However, regular ornaments that common people wear, it's forbidden even for prominent ladies to wear. A proof to this: we say that you move rings in a courtyard like any utensil that their main use is forbidden, and they don't say that they're allowed to be carried since prominent ladies may wear them. You can't say that its author is the Chachumim who don't allow ornaments to a prominent lady, since he would agree regarding other ornaments, as Shmuel later on allows a crown since only prominent ladies wear them, and it seems that he holds everyone allows it even the Chachumim. [Maharam explains: the Chachumim only forbade the "city of gold" since it's so exclusive, we're afraid that even prominent ladies would be tempted to take it off and show it to their friends.]

Tosfos says: although the Gemara in Sota says that you can't wear these bride's crowns, i.e., this "city of gold," after the Beis Hamikdosh's destruction, yet, here it implies that it's only forbidden to wear on Shabbos, but they're permitted usually; we must say that they only forbid them to brides, but not to the regular populace.]

21) Rav forbids a woman to wear a certain crown on her forehead that went from ear to ear, and Shmuel permits. The first version held: everyone held that a golden plate is forbidden; they argue if it's a cloth that's decorated with gold. Rav held that the main part is the gold (so it's forbidden like the gold plate) and Shmuel held that the main part is the cloth. The second version: everyone allows a cloth one, and they argue about a gold plate. Rav held it to be an ornament (which the rabbis always forbid). Shmuel holds that this ornament is different since it's only worn by prominent ladies who have too much dignity to take them off to show to their friends. Levi agreed to Shmuel that it's permitted.

22) However, a golden belt is permitted. Some say that it only refers to a cloth belt that's decorated with gold, and it's permitted like a golden studded Talis. Others say, it's even if it's only made of gold, since it's like a king's belts [Tosfos explains: and they don't wear any other belt underneath it. Therefore, we don't need to worry that the woman will take it off to show it to her friends]

23) Regarding a belt upon another belt [Rashi has two versions whether it's permitted or forbidden, and his main version that it's forbidden. Tosfos explains: although we counted two belts in the eighteen clothings that someone may wear out from a burning building (since it's through wearing it), that's because there was a second article of clothing that separates the two belts (so each belt helps to gird a different article of clothing, and not like here that you don't need two belts to gird one article of clothing). This is also not similar to allowing to put on many of the same article of clothings; that's because it's normal to wear it that way in order to protect from the cold. However, what benefit do you get to gird yourself with two belts? That's why the extra one is considered to be a burden.]

24) If you want to put on a wide piece of clothing (that covers your front), it's only permitted if it has straps to tie it on.

25) It's forbidden to wear nose rings (like by other ornaments). [Tosfos says: however, she may wear earrings, since she will need to go under all her hair wrappings in order to access it, she won't bother taking in off to show her friends. Although we forbid wearing colored threads in her earring holes, we must say that it's easier to access them than by regular earrings.]

26) A woman can't wear a ring without a signet, but is exempt from a Chatos if she wore it. However, if it has a signet, she's Chayiv a Chatos. The Gemara asks: we have a Mishna that counts both a ring with and without a signet among the ornaments for a women (that are susceptible to Tumah)? R' Zeira answers: our Mishna (that doesn't consider it an ornament, but a burden), holds like R' Nechemia who says that the status of a ring follows its signet. The Chachumim say that it follows what holds it together (i.e., the actual ring. therefore, R' Nechemia holds the signet is the main part of the ring, which is not ornamental for a woman, and the Chachumim say it's the ring itself, which is ornamental for the woman. Rava answers: [Tosfos: we can say everyone holds like R' Nechemia], and the Mishna that talks about being an ornament should be read in different connotations. I.e., the ring without a signet is an ornament for a woman and the ring with a signet is an ornament for a man. R' Nachman b. Yitzchok answers: [Tosfos explains: this should also be read in different connotations.] If it doesn't have a signet, it's susceptible to Tumah because it's an ornament. If it does have a signet, granted it's not an ornament for her, but still it's susceptible to Tumah because it's a usable utensil.

Daf 60

27) You can't go out with a pin without an eye, which is usually stuck in your clothing to be available to fix your hair, and on Shabbos it's stuck in your hair covering over your forehead. After all, it has a shiny metal top which is an ornament, which we usually forbid to go out with on Shabbos.

However, if you use it to help cover your hair [Rashi explains the pin is to wrap your hair around so you can tuck it under, and Tosfos explains that it pushes against the hair covering to make sure that no hair shall come out of the hair covering]. This is similar to the ankle bracelet (to hold up socks) that are not susceptible to Tumah and is permitted to go out with it on Shabbos. [Rashi explains: since it's only put there for Tznios purposes, you're not going to show it off. Tosfos asks: even by the ankle bracelet, we only allow if your wearing one, but not if you're wearing two. So, even if it's mainly worn for Tzinios, we're still afraid that you'll take it off to show. Rather, we only refer to a case of just one ankle bracelet which is never worn for beauty, but to facilitate the sock, (and that's why the Gemara here brings the part that it's not susceptible to Tumah, since the reason it's not susceptible is because; it only facilitates a utensil, i.e., the sock), and that's why we allow wearing it on Shabbos. So the same here, that the pin is only brought in order to hold the hair covering down, which is only coming to facilitate a utensil, i.e., the hair covering, so there is no worry that you'll show it.]

28) The Chachumim forbade wearing a spiked sandal on Shabbos. By this, we commemorate a tragedy that happened while wearing these sandals that killed many people. Therefore, they only enacted a prohibition on Shabbos, since the story happened on Shabbos, so it's permitted during the week. The reason they enacted not to wear them on Yom Tov, and your not even allowed to send it as a present, since it's similar to Shabbos, it's a day that people gather together and you can't do work. This is why they didn't enact to forbid it on a public fast day. Granted that they're gathered together, but it's not prohibited to do Melacha. [Tosfos says: although you're allowed to send gifts on Yom Tov that you can't use that day, but you could use during the week, like Tefilin; however, we're more stringent when it comes to spiked sandals. After all, R' Shimon b. Ellazar doesn't even allow moving it if you need to use them or you need their place like other utensils that main use is forbidden on Shabbos. even according to the Rabanan who argue, agree that you can't send it as a gift. Since the reason that gifts that are not usable on Yom Tov is permitted on Yom Tov since it brings happiness on Yom Tov, and because this brought on a tragedy, we say people are not that happy receiving them.]

29) Even according to R' Chanina b. Akavya who says that we only enact it the exact same way as the story happened, and therefore he holds that, when they enacted to forbid transporting the Para Aduma's ashes across a river since it once became Tamai that way, it's only forbidden exactly like it happened; that only if you cross the river in a boat, and only the Jordan river (but the Rabanan forbid even by crossing a bridge or if you walk through the river, and they forbid all rivers); still they forbade to wear the spiked shoes on Yom Tov. After all, the Jordan is different than other rivers, since their measurements are different (i.e., they're more wider, or narrower, deeper, or shallower); but Shabbos and Yom Tov are practically the same. After all, we say that there is nothing different between Shabbos and Yom Tov but those Melachos that are needed to prepare food. [Tosfos adds: this is even according to Beis Hillel who holds of M'toch, that you can do any Melacha that can facilitate food for any other use too, since we don't allow those Melachos only because it can be done for food.]

30) It's only forbidden if the nails are hammered in to strengthen the sandal, but you may wear them if the nails are only decorative. R' Yochanan says that you can assume it's decorative if there only five of them, and R' Chanina permits with seven. (You would have one by the strap and two or three on each side.) If the sandal was uneven and you're knocking in nails on the low side to level it, R' Meir permits it with seven nails and Rebbi allows thirteen nails

31) If you sew leather into the sandal to make it into a shoe, it's permitted. After all, they only forbade spiked sandals and not spiked shoes.

32) If you nail it in around the heel like a horseshoe, it's permitted since you changed the pattern from regular spiked sandals. It's also permitted if you lined the whole bottom of the shoe with nails so that the bottom sole shouldn't get rubbed out.

33) Tanna Kama allows moving this sandal to cover a utensil, and R' Shimon b. Elazar holds it's forbidden. The Halacha is like the Rabanan since they're the majority, and we don't say to Paskin like R' Shimon b. Elazar since his reason is more convincing.

34) If most of the nails broke off and you can tell from the sole that there were a lot more before, it's permitted to wear. However if they're uprooted without a trace, it's permitted if there is only four left from a small sandal, and five from a larger sandal. Rebbi even permits with seven nails.

35) It's permitted if you make heads at the end of the nails (i.e., flat bottoms), or its thin like a peg, or you covered the sole with leather and you knock in the nails from the top of the sandal.

Daf 61

36) You can't go out with one shoe (because people might make fun of you and you'll come to take it off and carry it four Amos in a Reshus Harabim. Alternatively, people are going to suspect that you're carrying the other shoe.) However, he may go out with one shoe if he has a wound on his foot. R' Huna says that you'll wear the shoe on the one that has the wound to prevent the pain of stepping on the wounded foot. R' Chiya b. Rav says that you put it on your good foot for pleasure (although you can't get the shoe on your wounded foot). People will realize why you have one shoe on, because the wound on you foot makes it obvious.

37) R' Yochanan says that you always put on your left shoe first since we see the left is important regarding Tefilin (that you place it on your left arm). In a Braisa, it says to put on the right shoe first. Therefore, whichever way you do it, it's fine. [Tosfos says that they don't argue, but each one has a greatness that the other doesn't have. As the right has the greatness that you put the blood and oil by a Metzorah on his right thumb and big toe. Also, we see that you do Chalitza on the right foot. However, once you choose a greatness to promote, you must always promote that greatness, and you can't switch. Therefore, R' Yochanan was upset when they gave him his right shoe first (since he always promoted the greatness of the left side).] The Gemara concludes: someone who fears Hashem should do both, by putting the right shoe on first and tying the left one first. [Tosfos explains that this is the exact way to do it, since the left's greatness is in tying, by tying the Tefilin on the left arm, we promote its greatness through tying. Therefore, if there are no laces to the shoe, you just put on the right shoe first.] However, R' Kahana didn't care which to put on first.

38) When you remove your shoes, you take off the left first. When you wash your hands or smear oil, you wash and smear on the right hand first. If your washing your whole body, you wash your head first since it's "the king of your limbs."

39) You can't go out on Shabbos wearing Tefilin, even according to the opinion that Shabbos is the time for Tefilin. [Rashi explains since you might need to use the facilities, so you'll remove your Tefilin, and you might carry it four Amos in the street before you put it on again. Tosfos brings the Kodesh of Kurbil that has the text "even the hand Tefilin is forbidden." After all, you only need to worry about taking off the head Tefilin when you go to the bathroom since it has the Shin of Hashem's name on it, but the hand one has no such thing. Even so, we need to be afraid that the strap may break and you'll come to carry it four Amos in the street.]

40) However, if you go out with Tefilin, you're exempt. this is even according to the opinions that Shabbos is not the time for Tefilin, since you're going out with it the way that it's worn, (it's like wearing your clothing).

41) You can go out on Shabbos with an amulet as long as it's not tied on with a necklace or bracelet, since people will mistake that you're going out with jewelery.

It's permitted even if we didn't establish both the person who made the amulet as an expert amulet maker, plus the amulet as a working amulet, but as long as we establish the person who made the amulet as an expert amulet maker even if we didn't establish the amulet as a working amulet. [Tosfos adds: and, of course, we establish the amulet as a working amulet, even if we don't establish the person who made the amulet as an expert amulet maker. As we see later that establishing the amulet as a working amulet is the stronger establishment of the two.]

42) [Rashi says that the established amulet is established for everyone to write, and the established person is established to write any incantation. Tosfos explains: the explanation of "establishing the person" is that one person healed three people with three different amulets. "Establishing the amulet" means that this amulet healed three people. However, he argues with Rashi that it only establishes the person to write this incantation in the amulet, but not for any other incantation. It only establishes the amulet for this person to write it, but not for other people.]

43) [Tosfos says: that there is a case that the person is established and not the amulet, even though the amulet should be anyhow established from the fact that it's written by an established person; you still need the amulet to be established if the person writes three more amulets that don't work, and the person loses his establishment as an expert, then you would need the actual amulet established in order to continue to be used.]

44) You can establish both the person and the amulet where he healed three people with three amulets three times. [Tosfos explains: we must say that the establishment of the person and amulet happened at the same time. After all, if we first establish the person to be an expert, then we can't establish the amulet (since it works because it was written by an expert, and not that such an amulet works per se). Therefore, we must say that two amulets became established by healing three people, but the person is not established yet, since he didn't heal with a third amulet. Then he wrote a third amulet that healed two people that were already healed by the first ones (Mahrsha- and thus, can't establish the writer as an expert since he didn't heal three separate people with three separate amulets according to the side of the inquiry later that he needs to heal separate people). Therefore, when the third amulet heals a person that wasn't healed yet from his amulets, both the person gets established as an expert, and the third amulet becomes established that it works at the same time. (Mahrsha- however, according to the side of the inquiry that a person can establish himself as an expert with healing the same person, you'll never get a case where the two can become established at the same time.)

However, Rashi explains the reason why the amulet gets established after the amulet-writer gets established because the amulet-writer is not dependant on his Mazal, but on his wisdom. However, Tosfos quotes Rashba who asks: if so, all amulets that the established amulet-writer writes should be established since we say that you can use it, and, according to Rashi, we should not say that it depends on the writer since it doesn't depend on his Mazal. Therefore, the very fact that all amulets don't become established shows that we should say it depends on the amulet-writer and not in the amulet. So too here, we should say the amulet's establishment was dependent on the established amulet-writer, and not the amulet.]

45) A person who wrote three amulets, and each one healed one person, he's established as an expert. An amulet that healed three people established it as a working amulet. [Tosfos says that it would be established even if it healed the same person thrice. After all, we only inquire later if a person healing the same person gets established, implying that we're sure that an amulet that heals the same person gets established.]

46) The Gemara has an unresolved inquiry: if one person wrote three amulets that healed the same person, does the person becomes established as an expert? After all, perhaps the Mazal (i.e., guardian angel) of this person excepts this man's amulets, but it's not a proof that his amulets work for other people.

47) You're allowed to tie and untie the amulet while you're standing in the Reshus Harabim.

48) your not allowed to save amulets from a burning house on Shabbos. (Nor could you save papers that have Brachos written on them.) You need to place the amulets in Shaimos. You're allowed to enter a bathroom with it if the parchment (with holy names) is surrounded with leather. This is not like the Halacha that you can't enter a bathroom with Tefilin, although you have leather surrounding the parchments, since there is a Shin on the Tefilin box (that represents Hashem's name of Shakai). The same with the Daled and Yud on the straps. [Tosfos says that we shouldn't have a text that there is a Daled and Yud of Hashem's name in the straps. As it implies in the second Perek (that there is no Daled and Yud) since we needed the rule that you need a Kosher animal "to facilitate heaven's works" that you need to make the Tefilin straps out of Kosher animal hides. However, the Gemara says that it can't need it to tell this by the Tefilin box since I would know it anyhow because of the Shin. If so, we should know it for the straps because of the Daled and Yud. Rather, since the Gemara didn't say that the straps need to be a Daled or Yud, it shows that they don't need those letters.]

Therefore, someone can go out on Shabbos with an amulet, whether if it's made out of written words, or from herbs, even if it's for a sick person who's life is not in danger. Since he can go into the bathroom with it, you don't need to worry that he'll take it off to go in and come to carry it four Amos in Reshus Harabim. However, you can't say that you really can't go to the bathroom with it, but the reason we're not concerned that you will carry it is because it's still an ornament when carried since it heals then. After all, we taught that you're not allowed to hold it in your hands and carry it four Amos in a Reshus Harabim. This must mean that you'll be Chayiv a Chatos if you did carry it out. [Tosfos explains; but you can't say it's only a rabbinical prohibition since it looks like carrying, but the Torah considers it an ornament even when holding it since it heals in this way. After all, if so, we should allow it if he carries it hidden between his fingers. Even according to the opinion who holds that anything that's forbidden since it looks like he's doing a sin is forbidden even if he does it in his inner chamber; that's only if he does something that looks suspicious if he does it in public, but carrying it hidden between his fingers doesn't look suspicious even when he appears in public.]

Daf 62

49) A man can't go out on Shabbos with armor, nor with his leather helmet (that goes below the metal helmet), nor with his metal boots (since he looks like he's heading to war on Shabbos).

50) A woman can't go out with a needle stuck in her clothes with an eye (that's not decorative, but only functional). She can't go out with a signet ring, and if she does, she's Chayiv a Chatos. A man is just the opposite. He's Chayiv if he's wearing a regular ring but exempt if he's wearing a signet ring. Although you might claim, if it's not the way for them to wear those rings, carrying on their fingers would be carrying in a strange way, which they're exempt on Shabbos; we must say that it's the way of a woman to place the signet ring on her finger when her husband asks her to put it away in its box. It's also the way of a man to put it on his finger when he brings it to the craftsman to fix.

51) Even though we say that shepherds can go out with sack clothing on Shabbos, and not only that, but since they're clothing for shepherds, they're clothing for everyone and everyone may wear it; (so, why don't we say if a woman wearing a ring is considered as wearing her ornament, why wouldn't we say that the man is also considered wearing it); that's because women are considered as their own nation (and you can't consider what they wear as to be wearing by men).

52) The Gemara asks: we see that women who find Tefilin may wear it to safety (and it seems to be saying that since it's considered wearing by a man, it's also considered wearing, not carrying, by a woman). [Tosfos explains: although, even if it's considered carrying, it would be carrying in a strange way, (since people won't carry them on their arms and head, but in their hands); still, since if she would be Chayiv a Chatos when carrying normally, the rabbis wouldn't allow carrying it strangely even if the Tefilin is lying on the ground disgracefully.] The Gemara answers: the author must be someone who holds that Shabbos is the time for Tefilin, therefore, the Torah requires you to always wear Tefilin, so it's not a time-based Mitzva and women are obligated, (so it's as much a women's apparel as it's for men).

53) If a woman goes out with a spice vial around her neck; R' Meir holds it to be a burden, and She's Chayiv. The Chachumim say it's an ornament, so she's exempt from a Chatos, but it's forbidden. R' Elazar holds it to be permitted since only a woman with bad breath will go out with it, so she won't take it off to show her friend (since she doesn't want to advertise this fact).

54) If there is no actual spices left in the vial (but it absorbed some of the smell), you're Chayiv for carrying out the vial since it can't be secondary to the smell that doesn't have any substance. This is no proof that you're Chayiv if you carry an item in a utensil that doesn't have the proper amount to be Chayiv (and say that the utensil is not secondary to an unimportant amount of material); since we can say that it's different if it has some substance to it, even an unimportant amount. However, by the smell, there's no substance to it at all.

55) Three things bring someone to become poor. If he urinates towards his bed without a utensil catching it, since he's doing such a disgusting thing. (However, it's not a problem if he urinates away from the bed or in a utensil.) Also, if you don't wash your hands for Netilas Yadayim properly. Also, if your wife complains that you're not giving her enough to dress up, and you can afford it, but you don't allow it to her.

Daf 63

56) R' Eliezer holds that someone is exempt if he goes out with a weapon hanging on him, since it's an ornament. The Chachamim says that he's Chaayiv since it's not an ornament since it's only a disgrace since we see that they'll become obsolete when Moshiach comes (when there will be no wars). According to the first Braisa, R' Eliezer holds that's because it would be no longer necessary, so it's like a candle in the afternoon. (However, at night, it has worth.) So, now, it's an ornament. According to the second Braisa, R' Eliezer held like Shmuel who says that there is no difference between our days and Moshiach's days but that we won't be subjected to the non-Jewish kingdoms [Tosfos: besides that Yerushalayim and the Beis Hamikdash will be built], and weapons will be necessary.

57) Lending money is greater than giving charity. Investing in someone is greater than them all.

58) You should live next to a Talmid Chachum who is vengeful, and not by a very nice ignoramus.

59) Whoever raises a vicious dog in his house, he prevents his household from doing kindness.

60) 'Beiros' are not susceptible to Tumah and a woman may go out with them on Shabbos. However, 'Kovlos' are susceptible to Tumah and a woman can't go out with them on Shabbos. R' Yehuda defines them as ankle bracelets that are made to hold up socks. Biros is if a single one is worn, Kovlos is if she wears a pair of them. [Tosfos explains: it must be that they can be shown without exposing any skin, and therefore, two were worn for beauty, and is susceptible to Tumah like any other ornament. (This is not like Rashi who explains that it was placed on her upper leg.) However, wearing one is a disgrace, so you don't untie it to show others. Also, it's not susceptible since it only facilitates a utensil, i.e., to hold up socks.]

R' Huna defines them that they both wear a pair of anklets. However, the Kovlos have a chain in between them. There was a family in Yerushalayim who took very large steps, and their girls would rip their hymen by doing so. So, they wore this chain to prevent them from taking too large steps. Therefore, it's facilitating the human (by regulating her steps) so it's susceptible to Tumah. (However, you can't say that it can become Tamai because it makes noise by the clang of the chain like we said the reason a bell is susceptible to Tumah, since you don't need the noise.)

61) We learn that the smallest ornament is susceptible to Tumah from the Tzitz that was a golden plate that was two fingers' width wide that Hashem's name was written on the top line, and "Kodesh L' " (holy to)" on the second line. [Tosfos explains: Hashem's name must be written at the end of the top line, and Kodesh L' at the beginning of the bottom line, or else it can't be read properly (and we wouldn't consider as it's written "Kodesh L'Hashem" on it.] R' Elazar b. R' Yossi said that he saw it in Rome and it was written "Kodesh L'Hashem" in one line.

62) The smallest amount of woven material is susceptible to Tumah. [Tosfos explains: this is only if you originally intended to make an item this small. However, when we said earlier (in the second Perek) that the material has to be three fingers' wide squared, it refers to material that was ripped off a bigger cloth. Although we say that cloth has a Hekish to sack, and it must be something that can be moved whether it's empty or filled (and thus needs a receptacle to fill it, and this tiny woven item doesn't have one); we must say it fulfils this condition by folding it and placing a tiny item in it, like a pearl or needle. Although we said that a flat leather utensil is not susceptible to Tumah (even though you can form a receptacle by folding it); we must refer to leather that was cooked a lot until it hardened and is not anymore bendable.]

63) If you have an item that's half woven and half ornament, it's susceptible to Tumah. [Tosfos points out: even though we said earlier that a smallest amount of weaving is susceptible, we must say that there is an amount, but it's a very small amount. After all, it implies here that you need both the woven half and ornament half to make it's susceptible, but by themselves they're not susceptible; and there is never a half to a true "smallest amount" that wouldn't be Tamai by itself.]

Daf 64

64) Sack material is susceptible to Tumah as long as its spun, even if it wasn't exactly woven, but braided, like the poor make to put around his daughter's neck, and the braiding can take the place of weaving. The same applies to the the rope that attaches the saddle and the cover of horses. However, other ropes are not susceptible since they're not spun. [Tosfos points out that the rope for the saddle and the horse covers must be designated for any use to be Tamai. After all, otherwise it's not made to move filled up, even if, technically, you can fold it and carry a small item in it. As we see later that a false leg is not susceptible even with a receptacle, since it's only meant to put the stump in it and not any items.]

65) [Tosfos says: there are two grades of goat hairs. One is thin and is designated to make fancy clothes from. That material is susceptible to Tumah with a three finger's squared swatch. However, swatches with the thicker and more corse hair are only Tamai if it's four fingers squared.] Also, items made from horse or cow tails are susceptible to Tumah.

66) A woman can go out wearing strands of hair, whether it came from her, or from a friend which is not as nice, and even if it originally came from an animal, which is not even her species. However, an older woman can't wear the hair of a younger woman since she might come to take it off if people laugh at her for it, and, of course, a young lady can't go out with an elder lady's hair.

67) Rav holds: everything that the Chachumim forbade going out to the Reshus Harabim, you can't go out with them into the courtyard either except for the woolen cap and wig. Our Mishna also says like that, but R' Shisha b. Ananei quotes R' Yishmael b. R' Yossi's opinion is that everything is permitted in the courtyard. [Tosfos says that this even applies to a courtyard without an Eiruv, since it' simple you may wear it there if it has an Eiruv.] The reason why they were lenient is because they're afraid that her husband will find her unattractive. As we see that the early rabbis Darshened "she should be pushed aside in her Nida" that she shouldn't make herself up or wear colored clothing. However, R' Akiva taught that they shouldn't accustomed themselves to this since it will lead to their husbands to become unattracted to her. Rather, he Darshined from that Pasuk that she should remain a Nida until she Toivels.

68) [R' Tam Paskins like R' Yishmael b. R' Yossi since the Halacha is like the lenient opinion by rabbinical prohibitions. Therefore, he allows women to get dressed up in ornaments in the courtyard. He even allows for them to wear them in the street because they don't have a status of a Reshus Harabim since they're not sixteen Amos wide and six hundred thousand people don't travel through it, so it's a Karmulas. However, the Ri asks: we see that a courtyard without an Eiruv is more lenient than a Karmulas since you can save from a burning house to a courtyard without an Eiruv, but not to a Karmulas. So, how can R' Tam extrapolate a Heter from a courtyard without an Eiruv to a Karmulas? R' Baruch answers: a Karmulas is only more stringent in the days of Chazal where they had a real Reshus Harabim, that they forbade a Karmulas since you might end up wearing it in a Reshus Harabim. However, nowadays where we don't have a concept of a Reshus Harabim, you can be lenient by a Karmulas. R' Shimshon quotes R' Shar Shalom who gives another reason to allow wearing ornaments: since our women don't take them off to show. The earlier authorities say that the reason why our women go out with ornaments since we don't protest against them since it's better for them to be ignorant of the law when they transgress it, than to tell them and they'll transgress it knowingly.]

69) Rav says: all that the rabbis forbade because people might suspect you of sinning, they forbade even if your in your most inner chamber. This is dependent on two Tannaic arguments. As first, we see an argument if the rabbis forbade walking a cow with a stuffed up bell (that won't ring) in a courtyard (which they forbade since people may suspect you that your bringing it to be sold in the market). We also see that the Tanna Kama allows, if you fell into a puddle on Shabbos, hanging up your clothing to dry as long as you don't do it in front of people (since they'll suspect that you washed it on Shabbos). However, R' Shimon and R' Elazar forbid it. [Tosfos says: there are those who hold that the Halacha is not like Rav since we paskin that you could Shecht an animal in your courtyard and prepare a hole for the blood to run into, but you can't do it in the market since people might suspect that you're a heretic (since this was the their custom). However, Tosfos concludes: this is not a proof. Rav only forbids doing it in private if someone who saw your action in private would still suspect you. However, here, if people see you Shechting in the courtyard, they'll assume that you have the hole to keep your courtyard clean (but you wouldn't care to keep the public area clean).]

Daf 65

70) you can go out with a cotton wad in your ear, or in your sandal as long as it's tied. R' Yochanan even allows if it's just fastened well (even if it's not tied). However, if you have a wad to protect from menstrual blood, you may go out with it without tying since it becomes disgusting, if it falls out,you won't come to retrieve it. This is true even if the wad has a small amount sticking out to be used as a handle. [Rashi says that the wad is placed there to make sure her clothes don't become dirty. However Tosfos argues since we Paskin that anything that's only to save from dirtying is carrying. Rather, it's to protect her from having the blood fall on her body and it will dry and it will pain her.]

71) you may go out with pepper in your mouth (or any other thing to mask your bad breath) as long as you don't originally put it in on Shabbos (but on Friday afternoon). Therefore, if it fell out, it's forbidden to return it [R' Poras explains that this is a problem of using medicine on Shabbos, which may lead to grinding up herbs. Tosfos asks: if so, why can't you return it if it fell out on Shabbos? After all, even though we forbade putting a bandage on Shabbos, if it fell off, you would be allowed to replace it if it wasn't for a decree that we're afraid you'll smooth out the medicinal cream, which is not applicable here. Rather, Tosfos explains: it's because it looks like he's making a trick to carry out on Shabbos. Similarly, we should forbid sticking those soft objects in orifices on Shabbos for that reason. They only allowed wrapping a nut to hold a certain clothes in place, as we'll explain later, since everyone understands it's how it's worn. However, not everyone understands why these are placed in your mouth.]

72) Rebbi holds that someone can go out with a golden false tooth on Shabbos. The Chachumim forbade. [Rashi explains: he might show it to a friend to show the gold off. However, his teachers explained that he might be embarrassed how much it sticks out and people may tease him over it, he'll remove it.] However, everyone agrees that you may go out with a silver tooth. [Rashi explains that it's not as important as gold so he won't show it off. His teachers explained: people won't tease him over it since it's not that dissimilar to other teeth.]

73) You may go out with the coin 'Selah' tied to a callus since it's beneficial to it since it's hard, has an image, and 'sweats' liquid when it corrodes, which are beneficial to healing calluses. [Tosfos says: the reason other coins aren't beneficial is because it needs the image that's on a Selah, and not other images.]

74) girls may go out with threads in their ears (making sure their holes don't close up) as long as they're not colored, or else we have to worry that they may take it out to show their friends.

75) Shmuel's father didn't allow his daughters to lay with each other. This may not be a proof to R' Huna who held that women who lay together are invalid to marry a Kohain [Rashi to a Kohain Gadol, since she's no longer a true virgin. Although there were no Kohain Gadols in his days; still, it's not the normal way and is an immoral act. Tosfos says that she my be considered as having an immoral relations and be forbidden to a regular Kohain because of being a Zonah. This is implied in the Gemara in Yevomos.] Rather, it could be that he was careful that they don't learn to lay with people and to bring upon them a desire to be with men.

76) Shmuel's father made Mikvos, (where the water is trapped between four walls), for his daughters during Nissan since he didn't want to rely on them Toiveling in the flowing river (that's only Kosher when the water comes from underground spring water and not from rain water), since the rain water might be more than the natural spring water [Tosfos and rain water is only Kosher if it's gathered and stands still.] As Shmuel says: rivers don't make people Tahor while it's flowing but during Tishrei. [Tosfos adds: a Zav who needs to be Toivel only in flowing water must cover a spring during the other times of the year so that the rain shouldn't come in. We don't say that the rain water gets Batul every drop at a time and should never add up to be the majority of the river, like we say that concept by Yayin Nesech. After all, we only say that by the wine that's not Batul in more than sixty (unless it comes a little at a time), untill it gets to the point that all the drips combine to be more than a sixtieth. Since it's enough now that it can give taste in the rest of the wine, we say all the Yayin Nesech that was Batul until now wakes up and combines and forbid the other wine. The same here, once there is a majority of rain, they all combine to make the spring water a minority.]

77) Shmuel himself seems to argue on his first statement since he says that the river gets blessed from its source (and there is always an abundance of spring water). [Tosfos says: even though it's obvious that the extra water comes from the rain, it's as we say in Taanis that when you have a Tefach of rain, you have two Tefachim coming up from below, from the water tables. We rely on this opinion of Shmuel as we say in Brachos that the reason the river is named 'Pras' since its waters are Paru V'rubu, they grow.]

78) Shmuel's father also made them mats for the days of Tishrei [Rashi says that it's place by their feet in order that they're feet shouldn't get dirtied by the mud and be a Chatzitza. Tosfos explains: they're placed vertically to cover them from people seeing them so that they won't be embarrassed by men seeing them, or else they won't Toivel properly (since they would be in a rush to get out of there.]

79) you're allowed to wrap a nut to hold a certain clothes in place. Not only that, but you can wrap it in a stone that's designated Friday for this use and it's not Muktza. However, you can't wrap a coin in it since it's always forbidden to move (i.e., it's Muktza). Even so, if it was already wrapped from Friday, you can wear that clothing and go out in it on Shabbos.

80) The Gemara has an unresolved inquiry whether you can make a trick and wrap this nut in the clothes in order to transport the nut for your child to eat. After all, even according to the opinion who allows, when a house is on fire, for someone to wear as many clothing as he can to save them, that's only to prevent him to be tempted to put out the fire, but not in our case. Or, on the other hand, even according to the opinion that it's forbidden to put on too many clothings, that's because it's sometimes the regular way to carry them, like a merchant might go out that way to sell them. However, it's not a regular way to carry out the nut wrapped in the clothes, so it might be permitted.

81) R' Meir held that someone who doesn't have a leg may go out with his wooden leg that he places his foot in. R' Yossi forbids it. [Rashi says that it's not an ornament or a shoe. However, Tosfos quotes from Yuma that everyone holds that it can't be worn on Yom Kippur because it's a shoe. They only argue about Shabbos. R' Yossi was afraid that because it can't be so tight since it's not made of leather, it might fall off and you'll come to carry it four Amos in a Reshus Harabim. That we see in Yevamos, that R' Yossi holds you can't do Chalitza with this wooden leg, it's not because he holds it not to be a shoe, but since he's worried that it might fall off, it's not considered as a shoe that's fit for him. It's like we hold that a small person can't have Chalitza with a large shoe. We also must say that he doesn't use them to walk in, but he has some crutches that he leans on, and this is only to make it look like he has a foot. This is because: otherwise, we wouldn't need to worry that he'll carry it four Amos since he can't walk without it.]

Daf 66

82) R' Huna compares it to a limestone worker's sandal [Rashi says in the name of his teachers: that they wore wooden shoes since the fire would burn leather shoes. Rashi himself explains: they were made out of hay. Tosfos: this is also implied in the Tosefta,] R' Akiva says these shoes are like regular shoes that are susceptible to Tumas Medris, you can do Chalitza with them and you can go out with them on Shabbos. We have contradictory Braisos if the Rabanan agree to him or not. These Braisos can be authored by R' Meir and R' Yossi, since it's dependant on their argument. [Tosfos says that this is not similar to a lump of sourdough that's designated to sit on that we say that it can become Tamai Medris. After all, according to the explanation that it's made of hay, the reason it's not susceptible since it can't last. This is similar to utensils made out of the peels of turnips and Esrogim that aren't susceptible since they can't last. This is not like utensils made from the Alon fruit, pomegranate and nuts since they can last. According to the explanation that it's made out of wood, it's not Tamai Medris since it's not normal to make walking shoes out of wood, however, it's normal to make a lump of sourdough into an item designated for sitting.]

83) This also is dependant on the following Tannaic argument. R' Akiva says that a basket of hay or reeds are susceptible to Tumah. [Tosfos says: although the Torah only says wooden utensils are susceptible to Tumah, but we must say that the hay has the status of wood according to the opinion that the fruit of the "Tree of Knowledge" in Gan Edan was wheat. Alternatively, it's only rabbinically Tamai.] R' Yochanan b. Nuri says that it's Tahor. [Tosfos: according to the explanation that the limeworker's shoes were made out of hay, the comparison is simple. According to the explanation that they were made from wood, we must say that the reason why R' Yochanan b. Nuri held it's not susceptible since it's not normal to make baskets from hay; so too, he would hold the same with the limeworker's shoes since it's not normal to make shoes from wood.]

84) The Gemara says that the reason why it's susceptible to Tumas Medris is: he sometimes walks with it to his home. [Tosfos asks: why don't we say the reason is because he wears it when he does his work? Rashba answers: it must be not primarily a shoe, but a utensil shaped as a shoe that's made to spread the lime. Therefore, the Gemara needed to come onto the reason is that he sometimes puts it on to go home. Ri answers: since it's main use is not to walk, but just to protect his real shoes from being burnt, it wouldn't be considered as designated to walk in if it wasn't for the fact that he sometimes walks home in it.]

85) If this false leg has padding in its receptacle, it's susceptible to Tumah. Abaya held only Tumas Meis and not Tamai Medris. Rava held even Tumas Medris since it's similar to a child's wagon. [Rashi explains: the child sits in the wagon. Tosfos asks: if so, it's simple that it's Tumai Medris, so what's the Chidush? Rather, Tosfos explains: the child leans on it as he learns to walk.] Abaya compares it to an elder's cane. However, Rava says that a cane is different since it's only to help the old man to step straight. [Tosfos: but here, the person without the leg leans on it when he sits. However, it's very uncomfortable to sit without the padding, and that's why the non-padded one is not susceptible to Tumah.]

86) They're allowed to go out with crutches. [Tosfos: this is a proof that paraplegics may go out with crutches.] They're susceptible to Medris and you may enter the Azara with it (and it's not like coming in with your shoes). However, he can't go out with a chair object tied to him [Tosfos: since it's lifted in the air, we're worried that it will come off and it will be carried], and you can't enter the Azara with it.

87) The 'Luktamin' is not susceptible to Tumah and you can't go out on Shabbos wearing it. R' Avahu explains it as a donkey skin that the jesters wore to look like the donkey is riding him. Rava b. Pappa explains it as stilts. [Rashi asks: why isn't it Tamai Medris? Ri answers since it's only made to walk through mud. The Aruch answers: since it's very tall, it's not made for any other reason than for the jesters to dance with them, and they're not made for walking.] Rabbah b. R' Huna explains it as a mask.

88) It's permitted to rub a hot cup on a stomach on Shabbos. You may rub water and salt on one's palm and bottom of their feet in order to sober him up. You can also 'choke' on Shabbos someone who has a bone of his neckbone blocking his windpipe, and the way to rectify it is to hold him by his neck. You can wrap clothes around the body of a baby in order to straighten out his limbs.

89) A woman can go out on Shabbos with a certain stone that's a Segula for her to keep a pregnancy, or another item that has its exact weight (which has the same Segula), but it must originally have the same weight, and not that you needed to add some on, or remove some when you find it uneven. There is an unresolved inquiry if you have something that weighs evenly with the first item that weighed evenly with the stone, if it helps. This is not only if she's pregnant and to make sure she keeps it, but even if she's not yet pregnant, but she's afraid that one day she'll get pregnant and she won't have it on her and she would miscarry. It's not only if she already had once a miscarriage, but also as a prevention for her to never miscarry.

Daf 67

90) Princes may go out with gold bells. Not only princes but everyone else too. We must say that this is the opinion of R' Shimon who holds that all Jews are nobility [Rashi says: therefore, we don't need to worry that he'll be teased by it and he'll take it off and carry it. Tosfos says: we can't say that we're worried it will fall off since it refers to being fastened well with a chain. However, Riva brings the Yerushalmi that explains: we refer to a case of a child wearing it. Therefore, we don't need to worry that it will fall off, since we're not concerned if the minor will carry it. We're only afraid that the father will hear people making fun of his child, and he'll come to remove the bell and carry it, but we're not worried that he'll be with his child when it falls off to worry that he'll carry it.] Rava says that we refer to it being woven in his clothes, and it would be according to everyone.

91) R' Meir allowed going out with grasshopper's eggs, foxes' teeth, and a nail from a gallow since they're Segulos to heal, but the Chachumim say that it's forbidden to go out with them since it's the Amori's superstition. However, it's permitted to place stones on the tree that's dropping its fruit early since there is a scientific reason to do so, to weaken the tree, and that will weaken the fruit, and it will then stay longer on the tree because it won't be so fatty. Also, you can paint a red line around it since it's to inform your neighbors about your problem so that they can pray for you.