Shabbat 57a (נז.) — the Talmud in English

Introduction to the chapter “With What May a Woman Go Out”

We learned in the Mishna [below, 73a] that carrying from one domain to another is one of the thirty-nine primary categories of labor on Shabbat.

By Torah law, one is liable to bring a sin-offering only when one carries a burden in the manner in which people ordinarily go out with it during the week.

A person’s garments are subordinate to him; therefore, carrying one’s clothing in the ordinary manner of wearing it does not constitute the prohibition of carrying [see Maimonides, chapter 18, halakha 17].

A person’s ornaments: by Torah law, it is permitted to go out wearing them when they are worn in the customary manner of those who adorn themselves. However, the Sages decreed that one may not go out wearing them on Shabbat, lest a woman remove the ornament in order to show it to her friend.

They likewise decreed that one may not go out with an item that is loose on the body and liable to fall soon, lest one come to carry it in one’s hands, thereby carrying four cubits in the public domain.

They likewise decreed that a woman may not go out with something that constitutes an interposition during immersion, because they feared that she might happen to require a mitzva immersion on Shabbat, in which case she would need to remove it, and might subsequently carry that item four cubits in the public domain.

They likewise decreed that one may not go out with items that might cause people to mock her, and that for this reason she might remove them and carry them in the public domain [for example, with only one shoe].

They also prohibited going out with certain items because of the appearance of impropriety—for example, with the garments of men of war.

Mishna:

With what may a woman

go out

on Shabbat from one domain to another, without thereby violating either the prohibition of carrying or a rabbinic decree,

and with what may she not go out,

because the Sages decreed that she might come to violate the prohibition of carrying?

A woman may not go out, neither with woolen threads

tied around her head,

nor with linen threads

tied around her head,

nor with straps on her head,

even though they are not burdens. For the Sages decreed concerning them because during immersion they constitute an interposition, and perhaps the woman will remove them before immersion and thereby come to violate the labor of carrying.

And she may not immerse with them,

with woolen and linen threads and with straps on her head,

until she loosens them, so that the water will enter between them and her hair.

And not may the woman go out with a totafet— which is a kind of headband reaching from ear to ear, nor with sarvitin— which is a kind of headband, with its ends descending from its sides onto the cheeks,

And

a woman may not go out

with a totfet—

which is a kind of forehead ornament extending from ear to ear—

nor with serbitin—

which is a kind of forehead ornament whose ends descend from its sides onto the cheeks—

when they are not sewn.

For we are concerned that she may remove them from her head in order to show them to her friend and carry them four cubits in the public domain. But when they are sewn together with the hairnet, we are not concerned, since she will not uncover her hair in the public domain.

And

she may not go out

with a kevul,

which is a woolen cap,

into the public domain.

But into an un-eruved courtyard they permitted a kevul [alone], so that she would be adorned and not appear unattractive to her husband.

And

she may not go out

with a golden city,

which is a round ornament on which an image of a city is depicted, attached to the garment with an incomplete fastening. For they were concerned that she might remove it.

Nor with a katla,

which is a valuable garment worn opposite her heart to prevent food from falling onto her neck, because there is concern that she may remove it.

Nor with nose rings

[that are in her nose], which she customarily removes.

Nor with a ring that has no signet.

Although it is an ornament, the Sages decreed concerning it lest she remove it [whereas when it has a signet it is not an ornament, and she is liable by Torah law if she goes out wearing it].

Nor with a needle that has no eye,

although it is an ornament, the Sages decreed concerning it [whereas when it has an eye it is not an ornament but a burden, and she is liable by Torah law if she goes out with it].

And

with regard to all these items mentioned in the Mishna,

if she went out

with them,

she is not liable to bring a sin-offering,

since the prohibition against carrying them is only rabbinic.

Gemara:

We learned in the Mishna that a woman may not immerse for her purification until she loosens the ties of the straps on her head.

And we raise a question concerning this:

Immersion

mentioned in the Mishna—

who mentioned

who mentioned

its name, the name of immersion, in connection with the laws of Shabbat? That is, why were laws of immersion included in our Mishna, which deals with the laws of carrying?

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said in the name of Rabba bar Avuha: It states the reason.

That is what the Mishna means:

What is the reason

the Sages decreed that

a woman may not go out

on Shabbat

neither with woolen threads nor

with linen threads?

Because the Sages said

that even

during the week,

she

may not immerse with them until she loosens them, so that the water will enter between them and the hair.

bring them

And since on

a weekday

she may not immerse with them until she loosens them,

therefore,

on Shabbat she may not go out with them,

because of the concern

that perhaps a mitzva immersion will happen to be required for her and she will undo them,

for the purpose of immersion,

and she will come

to

bring them,

carry them

four cubits

in the public domain.

Rav Kahana asked Rav: What is the ruling concerning tekhei halilata,

hollow, round chains of threads with which women braid their hair—

what

is the ruling regarding going out with them on Shabbat? Are they a barrier for immersion, and therefore the Sages decreed that one may not go out with them, or are they not considered a barrier?

He said to him: Did you say “woven”?

It is permitted to go out with it on Shabbat, because

with regard to anything woven, the Sages did not decree

that one may not go out with it on Shabbat, since it is not a barrier with regard to immersion, as it is impossible to fasten it tightly.

It was also stated: Rav Huna, son of Rabbi Yehoshua, said: With regard to anything woven—

the Sages did not decree

against it.

And some say: Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, said: I saw my sisters,

my sisters, who, when they bathed in hot water, did not remove from their heads the chains made of woven material, because

they were not particular about them.

The woven material did not prevent the water from reaching all their hair, and their enjoyment of bathing was not diminished when the woven material was on their hair; therefore, it was not a barrier.

And we raised the issue:

What difference is there between this first formulation

and

this latter formulation

of the statement of Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua?

And we answer:

There is a difference between them

in a case

where they have become soiled,

that those chains became soiled with mud .

According to the formulation that Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, said

that

with regard to anything woven, the Sages did not decree

that one may go out with it on Shabbat, since it is not a barrier for immersion—

these

threads that became soiled

are also woven

and are not a barrier for immersion, since they are not fastened tightly to her body; therefore, it is permitted to go out with them on Shabbat.

And according to the formulation that you said,

that it is permitted to go out on Shabbat with chains

because of lack of concern,

since the women are not particular about bathing with them, in the case of these chains,

once they have become soiled,

the chains—

she is exceedingly particular about them

so that her flesh will not become soiled after bathing. It is her practice to remove them before immersion, and it is prohibited to go out with them on Shabbat, lest the woman remove them from herself before immersion .

We learned there,

in tractate Mikvaot:

And these are barriers on a person

who immerses:

woolen threads, linen threads, and the ribbons on the heads of girls.

Rabbi Yehuda says:

Threads

of wool and

threads

of hair

made of hair—

are not barriers, because the water enters them,

since they are not fastened tightly onto the hair .

Rav Huna said: And all of them,

not only ribbons, but all the threads mentioned in our Mishna as barriers, are specifically threads tied

on the heads of girls,

for only concerning them

did we learn

that they are barriers.

Rav Yosef challenged this: To exclude what

did Rav Huna say that the statement concerns specifically threads tied on the heads of girls?

If you say

that he came

to exclude woolen

threads

of the neck,

meaning that when the threads are tied around the neck they are not barriers.

And what would that be?

Which threads around the neck did he come to exclude?

If you say that he came to exclude

woolen

threads,

teaching that they are not barriers when tied around the neck, but only when tied to the hair of the head.

It is impossible to say this.

For

now,

wool,

which is soft,

tied

onto

the hair [which is]

hard,

is

a barrier

for immersion.

Wool

which is soft,

tied

onto

the neck, which is

soft—

is it necessary

to say that it is a barrier? Surely, when placed on a soft surface, the thread is fastened more tightly, and it is obvious that it is a barrier .

Rather, perhaps we should explain that Rav Huna came

perhaps we should explain that Rav Huna comes

to exclude linen threads, which are hard and tied onto the neck, teaching that they are not barriers.

that are hard and tied against the neck, teaching that they do not constitute an intervening barrier.

This too is impossible.

For

now, linen, which is

linen, which is

hard, tied

when tied

onto

the hair, which is

hard, you said that it

you said that it

is a barrier. A linen thread that is

A linen thread that is

hard, tied

when tied

onto

the neck, which is

soft—

is it necessary

to say that it is a barrier?

Rather,

Rav Yosef said: This is the reason for Rav Huna’s ruling,

who permitted saying that threads around her neck are not barriers:

A woman does not strangle herself,

but her practice is to tie the threads around her neck loosely.

Abaye raised an objection to Rav Yosef:

We learned in a beraita:

Girls may go out

on Shabbat

with threads in their ears,

which they put there so that the openings would not close, because they do not ordinarily remove them even at the time of immersion.

But they may not

go out

with necklaces,

straps

around their necks.

And if you say that a woman does not strangle herself,

it is difficult:

Why may they not go out with necklaces around their necks

? Surely they are not barriers, because their practice is not to fasten them tightly around the neck?