Shabbos 46
“There was no resolution found to this dilemma and therefore it stands unresolved.”
I am finding this section of set-aside readings very challenging. Each day I try to find one thing I can glean onto for meaning. Today it was difficult to do even that. The text reprises the meandering themes from the past few days regarding set-aside prohibitions on the Sabbath. This includes a discussion of the independence of an undercarriage from a wagon, the principle of twilight and the recurrent theme of intention. There is a returning discussion of Torah vs. Rabbinic law and varying opinions among the Rabbis that leave certain topics unresolved. The text takes a diversion of a discussion into the ability of a woman to determine her own vows just to make my blood boil a bit.
A discussion of the candelabrum is continued from the day before where we found it resting upon the cloak of a Rabbi. Today we discuss its size and heft, which prevents it from being easily moved on the Sabbath. We are told that “moving the candelabrum is like dismantling the house.”
Several dissenting opinions are discussed regarding moving oil lamps and candelabrum. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi issued a ruling on the moving of candelabrum based upon a precedent that Rabbi Shimon previously established on moving an oil lamp. But we are told that the details are unclear and consequently, “the dilemma remains unresolved.”
Today’s reading discusses the lack of ability of a woman to own her own vows. A woman who vows to not eat on the Shabbat or determines that she will put aside certain food for its duration, can give into a sense of regret or hunger, and change her mind if she has her husband’s permission. We learn that one may nullify vows on the Sabbath if you are a woman, because a woman’s vows do not hold much weight on their own: “Every woman who takes a vow, it is from the outset contingent on her husband’s consent that she takes the vow. Since she knows that her husband has the ability to nullify it, her vows are not absolute and their final validation comes only through her husband’s agreement.”
In many cases, the determination of whether something is permitted to be moved on the Shabbat rests upon the intention of the act. We are reminded from an earlier reading that a person may drag a bed, chair and bench, as long as he does not intend to make a furrow in the ground. However, there is a further distinction between Torah and Rabbinic law and there is a greater ability to forgive an unintentional violation of Rabbinic law than there is of Torah law.
Today’s reading is especially difficult because it doesn’t really resolve anything. It even leaves some doubt into what I thought was a sound principle: intention matters. Today we learn that it matters, but not always, because there is a difference between violating Torah and Rabbinic law. It’s a difficult reading for a day when Covid-19 news continues to be dire and so many of us are looking for some sort of firmament to ground ourselves upon. So, I will take what I can from today’s reading: intention sort of matters.
For some reason, the discussion of the candelabrum reminded me of Liberace, who my grandparents adored. He was a classically trained musician who always had a giant candelabra on his piano and was the definition of flamboyant. I remember watching him on television when I was very young and loving how over-the-top he was in his stage wear (he allegedly developed kidney disease from dry-cleaning chemicals) and how he balanced his performance with a great deal of humor. He presented classical music to popular audiences in way that was inclusive and entertaining. He was unable at the time to be openly who he was, but he provided inspiration for a later generation of musicians, including Elton John and Lady Gaga. Liberace always had his huge smile, outrageous outfits and glittering candelabra sitting on his piano.
Here is a link to a snippet of a Liberace concert. Let’s all remember what it was like once upon a time to Boogie Woogie. Hey!