MISHNA: Just as it is prohibited for a woman to carry out certain items unique to a woman into the public domain, the Sages said that a man may neither go out on Shabbat with a sword, nor with a bow, nor with a shield [teris], nor with an alla, nor with a spear. And if he unwittingly went out with one of these weapons to the public domain he is liable to bring a sin-offering. Rabbi Eliezer says: These weapons are ornaments for him; just as a man is permitted to go out into the public domain with other ornaments, he is permitted to go out with weapons. And the Rabbis say: They are nothing other than reprehensible and in the future they will be eliminated, as it is written: “And they shall beat their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks; nation will not raise sword against nation, neither will they learn war anymore” (Isaiah 2:4). With regard to women’s ornaments, they added that a garter placed on her leg to hold up stockings is pure and cannot become ritually impure as a utensil, and she may even go out with it on Shabbat. However, ankle chains, which were also women’s ornaments, can become ritually impure, and she may not go out with them on Shabbat. GEMARA: The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of the term alla? It means club [kulpa]. We learned in the mishna that Rabbi Eliezer says: These weapons are ornaments for him. It was taught in a baraita that elaborates on this subject: The Rabbis said to Rabbi Eliezer: And since, in your opinion, they are ornaments for him, why are they to be eliminated in the messianic era? He said to them: They will not be needed anymore, as it is stated: “Nation will not raise sword against nation” (Isaiah 2:4). The Gemara asks: And let the weapons be merely for ornamental purposes, even though they will not be needed for war. Abaye said: It is just as in the case of a candle in the afternoon. Since its light is not needed, it serves no ornamental purpose. Weapons, too; when not needed for war, they serve no ornamental purpose either. And this baraita disagrees with the opinion of Shmuel, as Shmuel said: The only difference between this world and the messianic era is subjugation of the exiles to other kingdoms, from which the Jewish people will be released. However, in other respects, the world will remain as it is, as it is written: “Because the poor will not cease from within the land” (Deuteronomy 15:11). Society will not change, and wars will continue to be waged. However, this baraita supports the opinion of Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba who disagrees with Shmuel. As Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said: All of the prophets only prophesied with regard to the messianic era; however, with regard to the World-to-Come it was stated: “No eye sees, God, except You, that which He will do for he that waits for Him” (Isaiah 64:3). What will be in the World-to-Come cannot be depicted even by means of prophecy. And some say the disagreement between Rabbi Eliezer and the Rabbis was different. They said to Rabbi Eliezer: Since in your opinion they are ornaments for him, why will they be eliminated in the messianic era? He said to them: Even in the messianic era they will not be eliminated. And that is in accordance with that which Shmuel stated that the world will remain fundamentally the same, and he disagrees with Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba. Abaye said to Rav Dimi, and some say it was to Rav Avya, and some say Rav Yosef said to Rav Dimi, and some say it was to Rav Avya, and some say Abaye said to Rav Yosef: What is the reason for the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer who said: These weapons are ornaments for him? As it is written: “Gird your sword upon your thigh, mighty one, your glory and your splendor” (Psalms 45:4), indicating that a sword is considered an ornament. The Gemara relates that some time later Rav Kahana said to Mar, son of Rav Huna: Is that really a proof? This verse is written in reference to matters of Torah and should be interpreted as a metaphor. He said to him: Nevertheless, a verse does not depart from its literal meaning, although there may be additional homiletical interpretations. Rav Kahana said about this: When I was eighteen years old and had already learned the entire Talmud, and yet I did not know that a verse does not depart from its literal meaning until now. The Gemara asks: What is Rav Kahana teaching us with that statement? The Gemara answers: He comes to teach that a person should first learn and then understand the rationale.
1. What are the purposes of a sword? What did a sword symbolize in ancient times?
2. Is a sword a euphemism here or does the text mean sword?
3. On whom might you see weapons as decoration? Do the clothes make the man/woman?
4. How does wearing a sword feed into the collective Jewish memory? How does wearing a sword reflect on the nature of human beings?
5. What is the tension between shabbat and carrying weapons? How is carrying a sword contradictory to the experience of Shabbat?
6. How does Isaiah’s comment about messianic times prove the argument about not wearing a sword?
7. During the Hasmonean revolt, the pious Maccabees initially refused to fight on Shabbat and towns were massacred. Does that shape the Talmudic sages’ opinion?
8. For who is wearing a weapon merely wearing an ornament?
9. Does it matter if it is a time of peace rather than a time of war?
10. Does the rule differ depending upon the location of one’s home community? West Bank? Potomac? Brooklyn?
11. What are the instances when protection for one person makes another person feel unsafe.
12. Should helmets or protective gear (a shield) be prohibited on Shabbat?
13. If you favor the carrying of items for protection on shabbat, what are some more modern adjustments in the field of security that might challenge a prohibition of carrying on shabbat?
14. Would it matter if the weapon or protective device were worn in a sheath, harness, or fanny pack?
15. Think of a profession where carrying an item related to work is necessary even on shabbat. Does it matter if the weapon or device is carried for personal pleasure rather than an urgent purpose?
16. After the massacre in Pittsburgh, Rabbis were advised that they needed to keep devices on them. How does this relate to the intent of the Mishnah?
17. What alternatives can provide the same desired effects without carrying weapons or devices?
18. Did we transform tools/weapons into mitzvot?
How does this blurb from the Metropolitan Museum of Art challenge your opinion of wearing weaponry?
“With few exceptions, arms and armor of virtually all periods and from all the world’s cultures were decorated to varying degrees. The desire to embellish objects of everyday and special use was naturally extended to those that served such important purposes as obtaining food, self-defense, and maintaining power. Most cultures valued weapons and armor as signs of rank and status, as traditional symbols of the warrior class, and as diplomatic gifts.” The MET.
Protective Gear in 2020
Is a mask that fits around the ears and over the nose and mouth considered a "garment" which may be worn outside in the public domain on Shabbat, or is such a mask an extraneous accessory, such that wearing it outdoors would violate the prohibition against carrying through a public domain on Shabbat?
Something worn for the purpose of protection is considered a garment, and may be worn on Shabbat. Shabbat 63b. In the case of a mask, it might be considered "medical treatment," in that it protects the body against infection which could cause illness.
The item which might be used for work purposes may serve other needs which should be recognized. Some are repurposing items from one use to another. Flowfold Co of Maine is using recycled sailcloth to make protective clothing. Have you made a face mask out of a yarmulke? The repurposing of objects is reflected in the words of the late Israeli poet Yehuda Amichai:
Don’t stop after beating the swords
into plowshares, don’t stop! Go on beating
and make musical instruments out of them.
Whoever wants to make war again
will have to turn them into plowshares first.