The study of Gemara Shabbat, specifically Masechet Shabbat, continues on page sixty-four. This lesson is dedicated in memory of Shimon ben Julia; may his soul rest in paradise, and may a complete recovery be granted to all the ill of Israel. We begin five lines from the bottom of the previous page with a famous principle stated by Rav Yehuda in the name of Rav: in any instance where the sages forbade an action because of the appearance of impropriety, that action remains forbidden even in the innermost chambers. The concern is that if an observer might suspect a person of committing a transgression, the prohibition remains absolute, regardless of whether the act is performed in public or in private.
The Gemara immediately challenges this rule by citing our Mishnah, which states that an animal may not go out on the Sabbath wearing a bell around its neck, even if the bell is muffled with stuffing. The reasoning is that bells were typically placed on animals being taken to the marketplace for sale; thus, wearing one creates the appearance of impropriety, as it looks like the owner is conducting business on the holy day. However, a Baraita clarifies that as long as the bell is muffled so it does not ring, one may walk the donkey in a private courtyard. This seems to contradict the rule of Rav, as it allows a practice in private that is forbidden in public due to the appearance of impropriety.
The Gemara resolves this by explaining that the matter is a dispute between the sages. We see this in the case of a person whose garments become wet from rain on the Sabbath. While it is technically permitted to spread clothes out in the sun to dry, doing so in public creates the appearance of impropriety, as observers might think the clothes were laundered on the Sabbath. The first sage of the Baraita holds that one may spread them in the sun as long as it is not in view of the public, suggesting that prohibitions based on public perception do not apply in private. However, Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Shimon forbid it even in private. Therefore, the ruling of Rav follows the stricter opinion of Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Shimon, while the ruling regarding the animal's bell follows the first sage.
The discussion then moves to the items a woman is permitted to wear in the public domain. The Mishnah permits a woman to go out with a wad of cotton in her ear. Rami bar Yechezkel clarifies that this is only permitted if the cotton is tied to her ear. The concern is that if it falls out, she might pick it up and carry it, which is forbidden. Similarly, a wad of cloth placed in a sandal for comfort is permitted only if it is tied to the sandal. However, a different rule applies to a wad used by a menstruant woman to prevent her clothing from being soiled. Rami bar Chama initially thought this also required tying, but the Gemara concludes it is permitted even if not tied. Because such an item is repulsive, there is no concern that the woman would pick it up and carry it if it fell. Rabbi Yirmiya asked Rabbi Abba if this remains permitted if the woman adds a handle to the wad. The ruling is that it is still permitted, as the item remains disgusting even with a handle. This is supported by Rav Nachman bar Oshaya in the name of Rabbi Yochanan.
Regarding personal practice, Rabbi Yochanan himself would go out on the Sabbath with a wad of cotton in his ear to manage earwax, even though it was not tied. His colleagues disagreed with him, maintaining that tying is required. Similarly, Rabbi Yannai went out with such a wad in a semi-public domain without tying it. Although a semi-public domain is only a rabbinic prohibition, the sages of his generation still disagreed with him, holding that the requirement to tie the wad applies even there. The Gemara reconciles Rabbi Yochanan's practice with the Baraita of Rami bar Yechezkel by explaining that Rabbi Yochanan inserted the cotton very tightly, so there was no fear of it falling out. The requirement to tie only applies when the insertion is loose.
The Mishnah further permits a woman to go out with a peppercorn or a grain of salt in her mouth, provided she placed them there before the Sabbath. The pepper serves to sweeten her breath, while the salt is a remedy for tooth pain. Other items, such as ginger or cinnamon, are also permitted for these purposes, as they are considered ornaments or necessary remedies rather than burdens. Regarding a false tooth, Rabbi permits a gold tooth, but the sages forbid it. They worry that because a gold tooth is a significant and valuable item, a woman might remove it to show her friends and then carry it in the public domain. Rabbi Zeira notes that everyone agrees a silver tooth is permitted because it is not valuable enough to be shown off. The Gemara explains that Rabbi, Rabbi Eliezer, and Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar all share a common principle: a person will not remove and show an item that covers a source of embarrassment. Since a false tooth, a pouch of spices for body odor, or a snood covering a woman's hair are all related to hiding a flaw or maintaining modesty, we are not concerned that she will remove them in public.
The next Mishnah discusses a woman wearing a coin on a foot ailment to aid in healing. Because the coin provides a remedy through its hardness, its moisture, and the image engraved upon it, it is considered a medical necessity rather than a burden. The Mishnah also mentions that young girls may go out with strings or wooden splinters in their ears to keep their piercings from closing. Furthermore, women from Arab lands may wear veils, and women from Media may wear cloaks fastened with a stone. This teaches that any person may use such items, as the sages simply described the common practices of the time. A stone or nut used as a button is not considered a forbidden burden or set-aside object if it serves a functional purpose.
However, the Mishnah notes a distinction: while one may wear a cloak fastened this way, one should not fasten it for the first time on the Sabbath itself. Abaye explains that this restriction applies specifically to a coin, which is a set-aside object because of its inherent value. To use it as a button, one must physically tie it to the garment before the Sabbath. A stone, however, can be designated for use as a button through mere thought, and a nut is not a set-aside object at all, as it is edible. Abaye then raises a question regarding subterfuge: may a woman use a nut as a button not because she needs it for her cloak, but as a trick to carry the nut out to her child? This is compared to the laws of a fire, where some allow wearing multiple layers of clothing to save them from the flames. The Gemara weighs whether the lady's intent makes the act forbidden or if the unusual way of carrying makes it permissible, ultimately leaving the question unresolved as a Teiku.
Finally, the Gemara records the strictness of the father of Shmuel, who did not let his daughters go out with colored ear-strings because they were too valuable, nor did he let them sleep in the same bed to preserve their modesty and character. He was also careful regarding their ritual immersion. During the rainy season, he would not let them immerse in the Euphrates River. This was because the river would rise from the rain in the land of Israel, and he feared the rainwater (which must be stationary to be valid) would outnumber the natural spring water (which may flow). In the autumn, he allowed them to use the river but provided mats to prevent mud from creating a barrier on their feet. While Shmuel himself argued that the river's increase comes from its own source rather than rain, he elsewhere agreed that flowing water is only reliable for purification during the dry season, showing respect for the logical distinctions established by his father.