Shabbat

MISHNAH. WHEREWITH MAY A WOMAN GO OUT, AND WHEREWITH MAY SHE NOT GO OUT?  A WOMAN MAY NOT GO OUT WITH RIBBONS OF WOOL, LINEN RIBBONS, OR FILLETS ROUND HER HEAD;  NOR MAY SHE PERFORM RITUAL IMMERSION WHILST WEARING THEM, UNLESS SHE LOOSENS THEM. [SHE MAY NOT GO OUT] WITH FRONTLETS,  GARLANDS [SARBITIN], IF THEY ARE NOT SEWN,  OR WITH A HAIR-NET [KABUL]  INTO THE STREET,  OR WITH A GOLDEN CITY,  OR WITH A NECKLACE [KATLA]. OR WITH EAR-RINGS, OR WITH A FINGER — RING WHICH HAS NO SIGNET, OR WITH A NEEDLE WHICH IS UNPIERCED. YET IF SHE GOES OUT WITH THESE], SHE IS NOT LIABLE TO A SIN-OFFERING. GEMARA. Who mentioned anything about ritual immersion?  — Said R. Nahman b. Isaac in Rabbah b. Abbuha's name: He [the Tanna] states what is the reason. [Thus:] what is the reason that A WOMAN MAY NOT GO OUT WITH WOOL RIBBONS OR LINEN RIBBONS? Because the Sages ruled, SHE MAY NOT PERFORM RITUAL IMMERSION WHILST WEARING THEM, UNLESS SHE LOOSENS THEM. 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  and she untie them, and so come to carry them four cubits in the street. R. Kahana asked Rab: What of openwork bands?  — Said he to him, You speak of something woven:  whatever is woven, no prohibition was enacted [in respect thereof].  It was stated likewise: R. Huna son of R. Joshua said: Whatever is woven, no prohibition was enacted [in respect thereof]. Others state, R. Huna son of R. Joshua said: I saw that my sisters are not particular about them,  What is the difference between the latter version and the former? — There is a difference where they are soiled. On the version that no prohibition was enacted for anything that is woven, these too are woven. But according to the version which bases it on [not] being particular; since they are soiled, one does indeed object to them. We learnt elsewhere: And the following constitute interpositions in the case of human beings: Wool ribbons, linen ribbons, and the fillet round maidens' heads.  R. Judah said: [Ribbons] of wool or of hair do not interpose. because the water enters through them.  R. Huna observed: And we learnt all with reference to maidens' heads.  R. Joseph demurred: What does this exclude? Shall we say it excludes [ribbons] of the neck, — and of what [material]? Shall we say, it excludes wool: [The question can be raised] if soft [material] on hard  forms an interposition, is there a question of soft upon soft?  Again. if it excludes linen ribbons, [one might ask] if hard upon hard constitutes an interposition, is there a question of hard upon soft?  Rather, said R. Joseph. this is R. Huna's reason, because a woman does not strangle herself. Abaye refuted him: Maidens may go out with the threads through their ears,  but not with fillets round their necks. Now if you say that a woman will not strangle herself, why not with fillets round their necks?  — Said Rabina: