Shabbat

may not be forced into [the bung-hole] on a Festival!  — There even R. Simeon agrees, For Abaye and Raba both maintain: R. Simeon agrees in the case of 'cut off his head but let him not die'.  But R. Hiyya b. Ashi said in Rab's name: The halachah is as R. Judah,  while R. Hanan b. Ammi said in Samuel's name: The halachah is as R. Simeon. Further, R. Hiyya b. Abin recited it without [intermediary] scholars:  Rab said: The halachah is as R. Judah; while Samuel ruled: The halachah is as R. Simeon? — Rather said Raba, I and a lion of the company,  viz., R. Hiyya b. Abin, explained it: [Rab said:] The halachah is as R. Simeon, but not on account of his view. What is meant by 'The halachah is as R. Simeon, but not on account of his view?' Shall we say, 'The halachah is as R. Simeon', that it is permitted; 'but not through his reason for R. Simeon holds [that] it heals,  whereas Rab holds that it does not heal? Does then Rab hold that it does not heal? But surely, since he [the Tanna] states, ROYAL CHILDREN MAY ANOINT THEIR WOUNDS WITH ROSE OIL, it follows that [all agree] that it does heal? But 'the halachah is as R. Simeon', that it is permitted; 'but not through his reason': for whereas R. Simeon holds that in spite of its being rare it is permitted, Rab holds: Only if it is common [is it permitted], but not if it is rare,  and in Rab's place rose oil was common. MISHNAH. Now, THESE ARE THE KNOTS WHICH ENTAIL CULPABILITY:  CAMEL-DRIVERS' KNOTS AND SAILORS' KNOTS. AND JUST AS ONE IS GUILTY FOR TYING THEM, SO IS HE GUILTY FOR UNTYING THEM. R. MEIR SAID: ANY KNOT WHICH ONE CAN UNTIE WITH ONE HAND ENTAILS NO GUILT. GEMARA. What are CAMEL-DRIVERS' KNOTS AND SAILORS' KNOTS? Shall we say, the knot which is tied through the nose ring  and the knot which is tied through the ship's ring,  but these are non-permanent knots?  Rather it means the knot of the nose ring itself and of the ship's ring itself. R. MEIR SAID: ANY KNOT, etc. R. Ahadbuy the brother of Mar Aha asked: What of a slip-knot  on R. Meir's view: is R. Meir's reason because it can be untied with one hand, and this too can be untied;  or perhaps R. Meir's reason is that it is not well-fastened,  whereas this is well-fastened? The question stands over. MISHNAH. YOU HAVE SOME KNOTS WHICH DO NOT ENTAIL GUILT LIKE FOR CAMEL-DRIVERS' KNOTS AND SAILORS' KNOTS.  A WOMAN MAY TIE UP THE OPENING OF HER CHEMISE, THE RIBBONS OF HER HAIR-NET AND OF HER GIRDLE,  THE LACES OF HER SHOES OR SANDALS, PITCHERS OF WINE AND OIL, AND THE MEAT POT.  R. ELEAZAR B. JACOB SAID: ONE MAY TIE [A ROPE] IN FRONT OF AN ANIMAL,  THAT IT SHOULD NOT GO OUT. GEMARA. This is self-contradictory: you say, YOU HAVE SOME KNOTS WHICH DO NOT ENTAIL GUILT LIKE FOR CAMEL-DRIVERS' KNOTS AND SAILORS' KNOTS; thus there is indeed no guilt, but there is a prohibition. Then he [the Tanna] teaches: A WOMAN MAY TIE UP THE OPENING OF HER CHEMISE, [which means] even at the very outset? — This is what he says: YOU HAVE SOME KNOTS WHICH DO NOT ENTAIL GUILT LIKE FOR CAMEL-DRIVERS' KNOTS AND SAILORS' KNOTS, and which are they?