Shabbat 65 – Lesbian Sexuality

A general thesis about wearing something decorative in public on Shabbat:

“Abaye said: Rabbi, R. Eliezer, and R. Simeon b. Eleazar all hold that whatever detracts from a person[‘s appearance], one will not come to display it.”

That is to say, the removal of it would detract and therefore is unlikely to be removed. The example is a gold tooth. There is little fear that someone would take out her tooth to show it off, and therefore be guilty of “carrying” on Shabbat.

But let’s leave that for the more interesting aside having to do with female homosexuality:

“R. Huna said: Women who commit lewdness with one another are unfit for the priesthood.”

That is to say, they are not eligible to marry a priest (there were, of course, no female priests.)

Now this is a fascinating statement. While male homosexual behavior is condemned biblically (a serious problem, but one that has been overcome in textual analysis), the Torah is silent on lesbian sexuality. So this Talmud statement is important. Its significance is that this is a very minor rebuke. Any non-virgin, especially a divorcee, is disqualified from marrying a priest – and the priesthood was only symbolic by Huna’s day anyway! So there is an acknowledgement that homosexuality ends virginity, but little more. Huna’s statement is repeated and then made even more clear with a subsequent reflection in Yevamot 76a:

“And even according to R. Eleazar, who stated that an unmarried man who cohabited with an unmarried woman with no matrimonial intention renders her thereby a harlot, this disqualification ensues only in the case of a man; but when it is that of a woman the action is regarded as mere obscenity.”

In other words lesbian sexuality, while labeled as “promiscuous,” is seen by the ancient rabbis as less of a “sin” than the greater problem of pre-marital heterosexual behavior. Maybe those who condemn should think a bit more about their own history.

Of course, by this logic the answer would be marriage! A fine idea.

Shabbat 64 – Lust and the Wandering Eye

The majority of this page is taken up with technical arguments about when or if a woven good is liable to being defiled (by a reptile or by being in the presence of a corpse).

But there is an aside which deals with a verse from Numbers having to do with certain kinds of jewelry:

And we have brought the Lord's oblation, what every man hath gotten, of jewels of gold, ankle chains, and bracelets, signet-rings, ear-rings (‘agil), and armlets (kumaz) to make an atonement for our souls before the Lord. (Num. 31:50)

This is the booty from the war with Midian. Now, the rabbis ask, what is that the Israelites had to make atonement for? After all Moses was instructed by G-d to Avenge the people of Israel of the Midianites (31:1).

Of course, it has to do with sex.

The rabbis translate the word ‘agil as “a cast of female breasts” and kumaz as “a cast of the womb.” They were innocent of taking sexual advantage of the Midianite women during and after the war, but – according to this midrash, the soldiers say:

‘Though we escaped from sin, we did not escape from meditating upon sin.’

Just looking at these castings of female body parts (armor? Or a metaphor for seeing naked prisoners?)  constituted a sin worthy of atonement.

The School of R. Ishmael taught: Why were the Israelites of that generation in need of atonement? Because they gratified their eyes with lewdness.

And then – the famous lesson:

Whoever looks upon a woman's little finger is as though he gazed upon her genitals.

And THAT is perhaps why signet rings are not allowed on women in public on Shabbat! If men stare at the ring on her finger, who KNOWS where they will stare next!

As is often seen, even today – women are restricted in their clothing because of men’s inability to avoid leering.

This imposition of modesty, so prevalent in the Traditional world of many societies, reminds me of the old story about Golda Meir:

When the (Israeli) Cabinet was trying to deal with a series of assaults on women, a minister suggested barring women from the streets after dark. The Minister of Labor (Golda Meir) protested: "Men are attacking women, not the other way around. If there is going to be a curfew, let the men be locked up, not the women." (NY Times Obituary, Dec. 9, 1978).

Go, Golda!

Shabbat 63 – Battle Garb

This page is so full of wonderful things it is hard to choose. I’ll just note that there is a description of how much G-d loves rhetorical arguments, the idea that Torah study and financial reward go together, an insulting statement to left-handed people, and the idea that it is better to lend money to a poor person than to give charity (presumably because it preserves dignity and the donor is likely to give more under that circumstance). Oh, and an injunction not to keep or breed angry dogs.

Fun!

But, let’s just focus on the beginning:

The Mishnah states that is forbidden for a man to go out in public on Shabbat wearing implements of war (sword, bow, shield, lance or spear). Now these many be considered “ornaments” (which would be permissible) but they are not allowed because they are “shameful.”

Why are they “shameful”? Because Shabbat is considered a foretaste of the messianic era, which the prophet describes in the famous vision: “Nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war anymore.” (Isaiah 2:4) So wearing items of war – even ornamental ones – on Shabbat is an insult to that vision.

But what if they are considered beautiful? Abaye says “It may be compared to a candle at noon.” I love that – while a candle looks beautiful at night, at midday it is irrelevant. Context matters!

Notice that neither the Mishnah nor Gemora say anything here about self-defense. It is just assumed that no one would want or need to be armed on Shabbat. The peacefulness of the day is like the sun shining at noon.

So for gun supporters – a least let’s have one day of rest!

Shabbat 62 – Men and Women: Rings and Straps

On the list of things that a woman cannot wear in public on Shabbat is a ring with a signet. The exact opposite is true for men – rings without signets are forbidden to be worn in pubic on Shabbat. They are not “ornaments” which would are allowed – they are, technically, “burdens.” We read it most clearly back a few pages:

“if it has a signet, it is a man's ornament; if it has no signet, it is a woman's ornament” (Shabbat 60a)

There is a practical side here. Signet rings were items of official identity used for business purposes. Official documents would be sealed with wax and impressed by an identifying signet. So it would be normal for a man to wear one, and unusual in those days for a woman to.

The Gemara commentary does grant an interesting exception to a woman who is a “charity overseer” – evidently someone who needs an official signet to approve charitable disbursements. Interesting to see that this was a position where it was not unusual for find a woman in charge.

More commonly, though, is the clear division between women and men in these texts. For example on our page:

Thus we see that ‘Ulla holds that whatever is fit for a man is not fit for a woman, and whatever is fit for a woman is not fit for a man.

In fact, Ulla seems to hold woman as “a separate people.”

Interestingly, though, there seems to be room for women to do something which had long been considered (even today) only the purvey of men – wearing tefillin.

R. Meir holds that night is a time for tefillin, and the Sabbath [too] is a time for tefillin: thus it is a positive precept not limited by time, and all such are incumbent upon women.

Yes, Rabbi Meir’s view did not hold – either on the times when tefillin worn or on women’s wearing them. But it is interesting that this opening is given.

Strict divisions – and sometimes not so strict.

Shabbat 61 - Defining Effective Treatments - Amulets and their Writers

Mishnah: A MAN MAY NOT GO OUT [IN PUBLIC ON SHABBAT]. . . WITH AN AMULET, IF IT IS NOT FROM AN EXPERT.

So there are amulets and there are amulets. What's the difference? Professional standards!

Amulets were magical items; lockets, which were worn as protection. Sometimes they contained written text, sometimes special herbs. But in all cases they served a purpose health or protection.

Of course, to save a life or protect health - the laws of Shabbat may be suspended. So it makes sense that an amulet should be permitted to be worn in public when other items are not - so long as it works!

So how do you decide if you have a working amulet or not?

"Our Rabbis taught: What is an approved amulet? One that has healed [once], a second time and a third time"

So the amulet (either the actual amulet or one exactly like it) must have a proven track record.

But what about the amulet writer? How can you trust his work? Glad you asked:

"R. Papa said: Do not think that both the man [issuing it] and the amulet must be approved; but as long as the man is approved, even if the amulet is not approved."

According to Rabbi Papa there are 3 tests for an approved amulet and/or writer:

A. If 3 amulets are successful for 3 people and each works 3 times: the amulets and the amulet-writer are approved.

B. if 3 amulets are successful for 3 people and each works 1 time: the amulet-writer is approved, but not the amulets.

C. If 1 amulet is successful for 3 people: the amulet is approved but not the amulet-writer.

So there is an evidence-based standard for approving a particular amulet or for assuming the efficacy of a professional's work.

If only our modern medical system, which often pays for new medicines and therapies even if their effectiveness is unproven, worked the same way!

Shabbat 60 - No-Nail Sandals

A MAN MAY NOT GO OUT (ON SHABBAT) WITH A NAIL-STUDDED SANDAL

On the face of it - an odd restriction. Would the nails be considered removable ornaments so that there would be a fear of carrying? No, that doesn't seem reasonable. Any nails in a sandal would either be integrated (part of its construction or a reinforcement) or decoration. So what's the problem? And why only sandals, why not other kinds of shoes?

There's a story:

It was a time of persecution and some solders were hidden in a cave. One solder dropped a sandal near the enterance to the cave facing outwards. When the others saw it, they assumed a comrade had left the cave and been seen by the enemy who would attack them at any moment. So they pressed tightly further into the cave. In their panic "they killed of each other more than their enemies slew of them."

(two similar versions of the story are also recounted.)

How did the rabbis respond to the tragedy?

"In that hour it was enacted: A man must not go out with a nail-studded sandal."

This reminds me of the Biblacal story of Jacob who while wrestling with the angel has his hip pulled from his socket - in rememberance of which Jews don't eat the sciatic nerve of an animal. Particular (and pecular) restrictions expalined as mnemonics of significant events.

Perhaps these are folk etymologies but they speak to the way we honor the past.

Shabbat 59 - Horseshoes and Brooches

One way of deciding what is unfit to be worn as an separate item in pubiic on Shabbat (as opposed to something woven in or sown on to clothing) is determining if the object is succeptable to defilement should it comes in contact with someone ritually unclean. Which brings us to an interesting historical factoid: what horseshoes used to look like.

           "For we learnt: an animal's shoe, [if] of metal, is (subject to be) unclean. For what is it fit? — Rab said: It is fit for drinking water from in battle."

Now that's interesting! These battle horseshoes were not the open hoops we know. They had volume - fitting around and enclosing the horse's hooves, even serving as improvised drinking cups. And they might have had another dual use:

       "R. Johanan said: When one is fleeing from the field of battle, he places this [shoe] on his [own] feet and runs over briars and thorns."

The other basic principle of deciding what it forbidden to wear is value and removability. This is shown in the case of a "Golden City" presumably a brooch with an engraved image of Jerusalem:

         "R. Eliezer ruled: A woman may go out with a golden city at the very outset. . .the Rabbis hold that it is an ornament, [and it is forbidden only] lest she remove it to show [to a friend], and thus come to carry it [in the street]."

Interesting that this was apparently common enough that it needed its own ruling. Also interesting that it does not seem to violate the (historically flexible) rule against graven images. A city is not an animal or human which could be confused with a deity!

And you can't play horseshoes with a drinking cup!