Shabbat 58 – Signed, Sealed – Delivered?

Among the things listed that a woman cannot “go out” with – that is forbidden to wear in the public sphere during Shabbat for fear of carrying – is a Kabul. What is a Kabul? Glad you asked. So did Rabbi Jannai:

R. Jannai said: I do not know what is this [Kabul]: whether we learnt of a slave's chain, but a wool hair-net is permitted; or perhaps we learnt of a wool hair-net and how much more so a slave's neckchain?

The word can mean both a hairnet and a slave’s chain. So what is a “slave’s chain”? Evidently a mark of his or her status worn in public.

But Samuel maintained: We learnt of a slave's neck-chain. Now, did Samuel say thus? Surely Samuel said: A slave may go out with a seal round his neck, but not with a seal on his garments?

What is the difference? The concern is that if this attachable mark or seal is pinned onto a garment, it may fall off. If it does, and the slave discovers this fact, he may take off his cloak and fold it over and carry it to hide that it is missing. This would constitute illegal carrying on Shabbat!

But not just slaves – it seems that these marks were also used by scholars to indicate their position, or perhaps their affiliation with a particular school. They (or at least one school was) were also forbidden to go out with a seal on their cloak.

Scholars and women and slaves. Interesting connections!

Shabbat 58 – With Ribbons in Her Hair

A new chapter of Mishnah begins with a discussion of women’s fashion:

WITH WHAT MAY A WOMAN GO OUT, AND WITH WHAT MAY SHE NOT GO OUT?

This, of course, means on Shabbat. That is, what in women’s clothing is considered ornamental and therefore can moved from the private to the public sphere on Shabbat verses those items which would be considered “carrying” rather than “wearing” and therefore forbidden.

This being men talking about women’s fashion, virtually everything is a mystery.

Several words are mentioned in the Mishnah (totafot, sarbitin, kabul) which are totally unclear to the rabbis in the context of clothing. Some time is spent on figure them out.

But there is an interesting digression – a mention that she cannot wear certain ribbons (wool or linen) or fillets . . .

. . .NOR MAY SHE PERFORM RITUAL IMMERSION WHILST WEARING THEM, UNLESS SHE LOOSENS THEM.

Well, it is right to ask (as the rabbis do!) what does mikve have to do with it?! And so they (“the Sages”) answer:

And since she may not perform ritual immersion on weekdays while wearing them, she may not go out [with them] on the Sabbath, lest she happen to need immersion by ritual law (having completed menstruation) and she untie them, and so come to carry them four cubits in the street.

So the issue is what is not wearable in the mikve (because it causes an imposition between the woman and the water) is not wearable in the public sphere on Shabbat because she might carry them.

No “Scarlet Ribbons (for her Hair).” Harry Belafonte will be sad.

Shabbat 56 – Laying the Seeds of Destruction

Concluding the debate over the rehabilitation of biblical figures – did they sin, or not? On this page the rabbis discuss King David and King Solomon. Their sins, according to the rabbis, would have dire consequences; not for themselves, but for the nation:

Rab Judah said in Rab's name:

Had not David paid heed to slander, the kingdom of the House of David would not have been divided

Had Israel not engaged in idolatry, and we would not have been exiled from our country.

There are several attempts to interpret away the sins of the kings – David and Bathsheba, Solomon and his idol worshiping wives. But still the national consequences of their actions are noted, as in this tale:

Rab Judah said in Samuel's name: When Solomon married Pharaoh's daughter, Gabriel descended and planted a reed in the sea, and it gathered a bank around it, on which the great city of Rome was built.

The seeds of Israel’s future destruction are sown: as Solomon unites Israel with Egypt, Rome, its future oppressor, is founded.

Shabbat 55 – Troubling Philosophy

A digression into philosophy – although the rabbis would not have seen it as such. It begins with this powerful statement of communal responsibility (actually at the end of the previous page):

Whoever can prevent his household [from committing a sin] but does not, is punished for [the sins of] his household; [if he can prevent] his fellow citizens, he is seized for [the sins of] his fellow citizens; if the whole world, he is seized for [the sins of] the whole world.

There follows a moving example of one:

Rab Judah was sitting before Samuel [when] a woman came and cried before him, but he ignored her. Said he to him, Does not the Master agree [that] ‘whoso stoppeth his ears to the cry of the poor, he also shall cry himself, but shall not be heard’? (Prov. 21:13)

All the powerful social justice texts we love to quote. But Samuel rejects Rab Judah’s rebuke, noting that there was a higher court than his – and it would be they who would be punished, not him!

What follows is a discussion of the premise articulated by R. Ammi:

There is no death without sin, and there is no suffering without iniquity.

In other words, suffering and death are always, in this theory, the result of one’s own sins.

This rather troubling concept – what we would today call “blame the victim” is batted about among the rabbis. From Adam (“I gave him an easy command, yet he violated it.”) to Moses and Aaron (“Because you did not trust Me [enough to affirm My sanctity in the sight of the Israelite people].”) And yet, the counter argument is made: the punishment for Moses and Aaron was that they did not get enter the Promised Land. So their deaths were not punishment for sin – otherwise they would have been punished twice!

This counter argument continues, lengthily, through many Biblical characters who were thought to have sinned, but are actually - through interpretation - redeemed. Ok, some of these refutations are a bit tortured (Reuben did not actually sleep with his father’s concubine, he just switched her bed for his mother’s). But the ongoing attempt is to refute the assumption that pain and suffering are always the result of someone’s own sins – perhaps hidden sins.

Life, and philosophy, are more complicated than that.

Shabbat 54 – Mixed Messages

The Mishnah contains a bit of a strange statement:

ONE MUST NOT TIE CAMELS TOGETHER AND PULL [ONE OF THEM]. BUT HE MAY TAKE THE CORDS IN HIS HAND AND PULL [THEM], PROVIDING HE DOES NOT TWINE THEM TOGETHER.

Now what is the problem with tying camels together? After all, isn’t that the way we always picture them in caravans? R. Ashi says “Because it looks as if he is going to a fair” – not something you would do on Shabbat!

But, he continues, this may have nothing to do with Shabbat at all! “[BUT HE MAY TAKE THE CORDS IN HIS HAND. . .] was taught only in respect to Kil’ayim.”

Kil’ayim? What’s that?

This refers back to the Torah laws forbidding certain mixed things: “You shall not plow with an ox and an ass together. You shall not wear a garment of different sorts, like woollen and linen together.” (Deut. 22:10-11) (The word kil’ayim refers to “mixed seeds” also forbidden in verse 9. But all such mixtures are group under the same term).

But what is the “mix”? We are only talking about camels here! Not camels and some other species (which would be forbidden.) It can’t be the man and the camel – pulling along with an animal is permitted (again, we’re not talking about Shabbat here). So perhaps it is the mixing of different chords? Maybe the rein from one camel is wool and the other flax – if it is “twined” together in his hand, it is as if he is “wearing” them. Again, R. Ashi says a simple holding or twining of chords around the hand is not an illegal mixture – this text teaches that they are kil’ayim only if they are twined and knotted.

Samuel disagrees with the whole premise and argues that it must be about Shabbat and the issue is that the chord can’t be too long between the man and the camel, or have too much length from the hand to the loose end – because then it looks like he is just carrying a chord!

Ah, what a knotted chord this text!

Shabbat 53 – Creature Comfort

Continuing the question of what is permissible for an animal to “wear” on Shabbat:

R. Hiyya b. Ashi said in Rab's name:

A fodder-bag may be hung around [the neck of] an animal on the Sabbath, and how much more so [may] a cushion [be placed on its back). . .

Of course, these serve two different purposes. The fodder bag allows an animal easy access to food (which makes it happy). The cushion, it is assumed, is to keep it warm.

. . .for if it [the fodder bag]  is permitted there for [the animal's] pleasures how much more so here, that it [the cushion] is [to save the animal] suffering!

The fodder bag is actually debated. But the cushion/blanket is not.

An animal's pleasure does not rank against the laws of the Sabbath. But keeping an animal from suffering is a high priority.

Shabbat 52 – You Can Lead a Horse - or a Red Heifer!

What exactly is the issue with chord or rein on an animal in public during Shabbat? It seems there are two concerns:

One is that it could be considered unnecessary as in an ornament or a muzzle (the question being if a muzzle is necessary or not). A nose-ring on a camel, for example: some say “Whether as an ornament or a guard, it is forbidden” others “as an ornament it is forbidden, as a guard it is permitted.”

The second concern is that if the rein or chain slipped off the animal, the person holding it would then be left carrying an object on Shabbat!

 But the Mishnah is specific: A HORSE WITH ITS CHAIN, AND ALL CHAINWEARING ANIMALS MAY GO OUT WITH THEIR CHAINS AND BE LED BY THEIR CHAINS.

But what is the difference between “going out” and “being led” ? Why does the Mishnah list both?

R. Huna suggests that these animals can “go out” wearing a chain which is loosely wrapped around them, ready to be used if necessary – or with someone holding the chain and leading them. Samuel disagrees saying they cannot wear the chain unless someone is holding it. Huna seems to win.

But the interesting side reference is to a “red heifer.”  (Always interesting when the red heifer is mentioned.) How does it relate? It seems that this it is permitted to lead it or tie it with a chord. But the specific biblical command is it must be an animal “upon which never came a yoke” (Num. 19:2). So a cord or lead is not considered a “burden” making it permissible.

Tell that to the animal!