Shabbat 57a — 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 principal labors on Shabbat.

By Torah law, one is liable for a sin-offering only when one carried a load in the manner in which people ordinarily go out with it on weekdays.

A person’s garments are subordinate to him—and therefore there is no prohibition of carrying in taking out his clothes by way of wearing [see Rambam, chapter 18, halakha 17].

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

And likewise they decreed that one should not go out with something that is loose on the body, and there is concern that it will fall quickly, and he will come to bring it [in his hands, by way of carrying] four cubits in the public domain.

And likewise they decreed that a woman should not go out with something that intervenes during immersion, because they were concerned lest an immersion of a mitzva happen to her on Shabbat, at which time she must remove them from herself, and lest she afterward come to carry this object four cubits in the public domain.

And likewise they decreed that one should not go out with things concerning which it is possible that people will ridicule him, and because of this he will come to remove them and carry them in the public domain [such as with one sandal alone].

And likewise they prohibited going out because of appearance—for example, in garments of men of war.

Mishna:

With what may a woman

go out

on Shabbat from one domain to another, and there is in it neither the prohibition of carrying nor a rabbinic decree,

and with what may she not go out,

because the Rabbis decreed lest she come to the prohibition of carrying?

A woman may not go out, neither with woolen threads

tied on her head ,

nor with linen threads

tied on her head,

nor with straps that are on her head,

even though they are not loads. For the Rabbis decreed concerning them because at the time of immersion they intervene, and lest the woman remove them before the immersion and come to the labor of carrying.

And she may not immerse with them

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

until she loosens them, so that the water may 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,

when they are not sewn.

For we are concerned lest she remove them from her head 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 have no concern, since she will not uncover her hair in the public domain .

with a forehead ornament—

a kind of ornamental plate extending from ear to ear—

or with side ornaments—

a kind of ornamental plate whose ends descend from its sides onto the cheeks—

And not

may she go out

with a kavul, which is a woolen cap into the public domain. But into an unpartnered courtyard they permitted her to go out with a kavul [alone], so that she may be adorned and not become unattractive in her husband’s eyes . And not may she go out with a city of gold, which is a round ornament on which the likeness of a city is drawn, and which is attached to the garment with an incomplete fastening. For they were concerned lest she come to remove it .

may she go out

with a woolen cap,

which is a woolen head covering,

into the public domain.

But in an unjoined courtyard, they permitted her to wear the cap [alone], so that she would be adorned and not appear unattractive to her husband .

And not with a katla,

which is a valuable garment located opposite her heart in order to prevent food from falling onto her neck, because there is concern lest she remove it.

And not with nose rings [

that are in her nose], which she is accustomed to remove.

And not with a ring that has no signet. Although it is an ornament, they decreed concerning it lest she come to remove it [and when it has a signet, it is not an ornament, and she is liable by Torah law if she goes out with it]. And not with a needle that has no eye, for although it is an ornament, they decreed concerning it [and 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 all these things mentioned in the Mishna— if she went out with them, she is not liable for a sin-offering,

for the prohibition of carrying them is only rabbinic .

Gemara: We learned in the Mishna that a woman may not immerse for her purification until she loosens the knots of the straps on her head. And we raised an objection concerning it: Immersion mentioned in the Mishna— who mentioned who mentioned it in connection with the laws of Shabbat? That is, why were the laws of immersion stated in our Mishna, which deals with the laws of carrying? Rav Nahman bar Yitzhak said in the name of Rabba bar Avuha: It states the reason. The Mishna says: What is the reason the Rabbis decreed that a woman may not go out

that are in her nose], because she is accustomed to removing them.

Nor with a ring that has no signet.

Although it is an ornament, the Sages decreed against it [whereas when it has a signet, it is not considered an ornament, and she would be liable by Torah law if she went out wearing it].

Nor with a needle that has no eye,

because although it is an ornament, the Sages decreed against it [whereas when it has an eye, it is not an ornament but a load, and she would be liable by Torah law if she went out carrying it].

And

with all these objects mentioned in the Mishna,

if she went out

wearing them,

she is not liable to bring a sin-offering,

because the prohibition against carrying them is only rabbinic .

on Shabbat

neither with woolen threads nor

with linen threads—

because the Sages said

that even

on a weekday

she

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

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said that Rabba bar Avuha said: The Mishna is stating the reason.

In the Mishna,

what is the reason

the Sages decreed that

a woman may not go out

on Shabbat

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

perhaps an immersion of a mitzva will happen to her and she will undo them, and she will loosen them for the sake of the immersion ,

and she will come

to

bring them

to carry them four cubits in the public domain .

weekday

she may not immerse with them until she loosens them,

for this reason

on Shabbat she may not go out wearing them,

because of concern

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

in order to immerse .

And she may come

and

bring them—

carry them—

four cubits

in the public domain .

Rav Kahana asked Rav: tikhĕi halilata,

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

what

is the ruling concerning going out with them on Shabbat? Are they a barrier for immersion, and therefore the Rabbis 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 that is woven, the Rabbis did not decree

against going out with it on Shabbat, because it does not constitute a barrier with regard to immersion, since it is impossible to tighten it.

It was also stated: Rav Huna son of Rabbi Yehoshua said: Anything that is woven —

they did not decree

against it, the Rabbis.

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

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

they were not particular about them.

For the woven material does not prevent the water from coming onto all their hair, and the pleasure of their bathing is not diminished when the woven material is on their hair, and therefore they do not constitute a barrier.

And we raised it:

What difference is there between this first formulation

first

and between this latter formulation

in the words of Rav Huna son of Rav Yehoshua?

And we answer:

There is a difference between them

the distinction between the two formulations is in a case

where they are soiled,

that those chains became soiled with mud.

According to the formulation that said

Rav Huna son of Rav Yehoshua

“anything that is woven, they did not decree”

that the Rabbis may go out with it on Shabbat, since it does not constitute a barrier during immersion —

these

threads that became soiled

are also woven

and they do not constitute a barrier for immersion, since they are not tightened against her body, and 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 particularity,

that women are not particular when bathing with them, with these

once they became soiled

the chains

she is particular, particular about them

the women, so that their flesh not become soiled after the bathing. And it is their practice to remove them before immersion, and it is forbidden to go out with them on Shabbat, as a decree lest the woman remove them from herself before immersion.

We learned there

in tractate Mikvaot:

And these constitute barriers on a person

who immerses:

wool threads, linen threads, and the straps on the heads of girls.

Rabbi Yehuda says:

threads

of wool and

threads

of hair [

made from hair] —

do not constitute a barrier, because the water enters them,

since they are not tightened against the hair.

Rav Huna said: And all of them,

not only straps, but all the threads mentioned in our Mishna that constitute barriers, are specifically threads tied

on the heads of girls,

for specifically with regard to them

we learned

that they constitute barriers.

Rav Yosef challenged him: To exclude what

did Rav Huna say that it refers specifically to threads tied on the heads of girls?

If you say

that he came

to exclude

the threads

of the neck,

for when the threads are tied around the neck they do not constitute barriers.

And what is it?

Which threads on the neck did he come to exclude?

If you say, to exclude

the threads

of wool,

and to say that they do not constitute a barrier when tied around the neck, but only when they are tied in the hair of the head.

It is impossible to say this.

For

now,

wool,

soft,

tied

upon

the hair [which is]

hard,

it

constitutes a barrier

during immersion.

Wool

soft,

tied

upon

the neck, which is

soft —

is it necessary

to say that it constitutes a barrier!? Surely, on a soft place the thread is tightened more, and obviously it constitutes a barrier.

Rather,

perhaps we should explain that Rav Huna came

to exclude linen threads

that are hard and tied upon the neck, and to say that they do not constitute barriers.

This too is impossible.

For

now linen, which is

hard,

hard,

tied

upon

the hair, which is

hard,

you said that it

constitutes a barrier. A linen thread that is

A linen thread that is

hard,

tied

upon

the neck, which is

soft —

is it necessary

to say that it constitutes a barrier!?

Rather,

Rav Yosef said: This is the reason for Rav Huna,

who was lenient to say that threads around her neck do not constitute barriers:

because a woman does not strangle herself,

but it is her practice to tie the threads around her neck so that they are loose.

Abaye raised an objection to Rav Yosef

from what we learned in a beraita:

Girls go out

on Shabbat

with threads in their ears,

which they place there so that the opening not close, because it is not their practice to remove them even at the time of immersion.

But they do 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

? Are they not barriers, since it is their practice not to tighten them around the neck?