Daf Ditty Shabbes 113: vestis virum facit

“Costly thy habit as thy purse can buy,

But not expressed in fancy—rich, not gaudy,
For the apparel oft proclaims the man,
And they in France of the best rank and station
Are of a most select and generous chief in that.”

Hamlet: Act 1 Scene 3 Page 3

1
 ‫ ְוִכי ָהא ְדּ ַרִבּי יוָֹחָנן ָק ֵרי‬,‫ ֶשׁל חוֹל‬7‫ ֶשׁל ַשָׁבּת ְכַּמְלבּוְּשׁ‬7‫ ״ ְוִכַבְּדתּוֹ״ — ֶשׁלּ ֹא ְיֵהא ַמְלבּוְּשׁ‬.‫״‬7‫״ ְוִכַבְּדתּוֹ ֵמֲﬠשׂוֹת ְדּ ָרֶכי‬
— ‫״‬7‫ ״ִמְמּצוֹא ֶחְפְצ‬.‫שׁל חוֹל‬ ֶ 7‫ ֶשׁל ַשָׁבּת ְכִּהילּוְּכ‬7‫״ — ֶשׁלּ ֹא ְיֵהא ִהילּוְּכ‬7‫ ״ֵמֲﬠשׂוֹת ְדּ ָרֶכי‬.‫ְלָמאֵניהּ ״ְמַכְבּדוַֹתי״‬
‫ ״ ְוַדֵבּר ָדָּבר״‬.‫שַׁמ ִים מוָּתּ ִרין‬
ָ ‫ ֶחְפֵצי‬,‫ ֲאסוּ ִרין‬7‫— ֲחָפֶצי‬

Our daf cites what we learned with regard to the following passage: “If you keep your feet from
breaking, from pursuing your affairs on My holy day, and you call Shabbat a delight, the Lord’s
holy day honorable, and you honor it by not going your own way, from attending to your affairs
and speaking idle words” (Isaiah 58:13).

The Rabbis derived from the words “and you honor it” that your dress on Shabbat should not
be like your dress during the week, as Rabbi Yoḥanan would refer to his clothing as my
honor, indicating that appropriate clothing is a form of deference.

The words “going your own way” mean that your walking on Shabbat should not be like
your walking during the week.

“From attending to your affairs” means it is prohibited to deal with your weekday affairs
and to speak about them on Shabbat. However, affairs of Heaven, i.e., those pertaining to
mitzvot, are permitted.

‫ ״ֵתּן ְלָחָכם ְוֶיְחַכּם עוֹד״ — ָאַמר ַרִבּי‬.‫שָׁבּת‬

ַ ‫שׁל‬
ֶ ‫ ֵאלּוּ ְבָּגִדים‬:‫״ — ָאַמר ַרִבּי ֶאְלָﬠָזר‬m‫ַת ִי‬l‫שְׂמְתּ ִשְׂמ‬ ַ ‫״ ְו ָרַחְצְתּ ָוַסְכְתּ ְו‬
‫ זוֹ רוּת ַהמּוֲֹאִבָיּה וְּשׁמוֵּאל ָה ָרָמִתי‬:‫ֶאְלָﬠָזר‬.

The Gemara continues to discuss Shabbat. Naomi advised Ruth: “And you shall bathe, and
anoint yourself, and put on your robes, and go down to the threshing floor. Do not make
yourself known to the man until he has finished eating and drinking” (Ruth 3:3).

Rabbi Elazar said: These robes are Shabbat garments that Naomi told her to wear in honor of
the occasion. Apropos the book of Ruth, the Gemara cites additional statements of Rabbi Elazar
with regard to Ruth: “Give to the wise one and he will become wiser; let the righteous one know
and he will learn more” (Proverbs 9:9).

Rabbi Elazar said: This refers to Ruth the Moabite and Samuel of Rama, who received
advice and added to it with their wisdom.

‫ ״ַוֵתּ ֶרד‬:‫ ְוִאילּוּ ְבִּדיַדהּ ְכִּתיב‬,‫ ְוָי ַרְדְתּ ַהֹגּ ֶרן״‬m‫ ָﬠַל ִי‬m‫ַת ִי‬l‫ ְדִּאילּוּ ָנֳﬠִמי ָקָאְמ ָרה ַלהּ ״ ְו ָרַחְצְתּ ָוַסְכְתּ ְוַשְׂמְתּ ִשְׂמ‬,‫רוּת‬
‫ ַוֲהַדר ״ַוַתַּﬠשׂ ְכֹּכל ֲאֶשׁר ִצַוָּתּה ֲחמוָֹתהּ״‬,‫ַהֹגּ ֶרן״‬

2
Whereas Naomi said to Ruth: “And you shall bathe, and anoint yourself, and put on your robes,
and go down to the threshing floor,” but with regard to Ruth herself it is written, “And she went
down to the threshing floor” (Ruth 3:6), and only afterward does it say, “And she did according to
all that her mother-in-law commanded her.” Ruth decided to anoint herself at the threshing floor
and not on the road so that people would not meet her on the way there and suspect her of
immorality.

RASHI

The redundancy of “her garments” prompts Rashi to refer to her modesty.

She waited to get to the threshing floor to change so that people would not suspect her of being a
harlot.

The Gemara cites a verse from TANACH (not Chumash!) as a prooftext for our law:

‫ ֲﬠשׂוֹת‬,7‫ָתִּשׁיב ִמַשָּׁבּת ַרְגֶל‬-‫יג ִאם‬
‫שָּׁבּת‬ַ ‫ ְבּיוֹם ָקְדִשׁי; ְוָק ָראָת ַל‬7‫ֲחָפֶצ‬
‫ ְוִכַבְּדתּוֹ‬,‫ ִלְקדוֹשׁ ְיהָוה ְמֻכָבּד‬,‫ֹעֶנג‬
‫ ְוַדֵבּר‬7‫ ִמְמּצוֹא ֶחְפְצ‬,7‫ֵמֲﬠשׂוֹת ְדּ ָרֶכי‬
.‫ָדָּבר‬
13 If thou turn away thy foot because of the sabbath,
from pursuing thy business on My holy day; and call the
sabbath a delight, and the holy of the LORD honorable;
and shalt honor it, not doing thy wonted ways, nor
pursuing thy business, nor speaking thereof;

,7‫ ְוִה ְרַכְּבִתּי‬,‫ ְיהָוה‬-‫ ִתְּתַﬠַנּג ַﬠל‬,‫יד ָאז‬ 14 Then shalt thou delight thyself in the LORD, and I will
;‫ָא ֶרץ‬ (‫)ָבֳּמֵתי‬ ‫במותי‬-‫ַﬠל‬ make thee to ride upon the high places of the earth, and I
‫ִכּי ִפּי‬--7‫ ַנֲחַלת ַיֲﬠֹקב ָאִבי‬,7‫ְוַהֲאַכְלִתּי‬ will feed thee with the heritage of Jacob thy father; for the
{‫ }פ‬.‫ ִדֵּבּר‬,‫ְיהָוה‬ mouth of the LORD hath spoken it. {P}

In fact, this is the only non-Pentateuchal reference to Shabbat (and many recite is as the “kiddush
for seuda shlishit)

“If you keep your feet from breaking, from pursuing your affairs on My holy day, and you call
Shabbat a delight, the Lord’s holy day honorable, and you honor it by not going your own way,
from attending to your affairs and speaking idle words” (Yeshayahu 58:13).

The Rabbis derived: - from the words “and you honor it” that your dress on Shabbat should not
be like your dress during the week, as Rabbi Yohanan would refer to his clothing as my honor,
indicating that appropriate clothing is a form of deference. - from the words “going your own
way” mean that your walking on Shabbat should not be like your walking during the week. -

3
“From attending to your affairs” means it is prohibited to deal with your weekday affairs and to
speak about them on Shabbat. However, affairs of Heaven, i.e., those pertaining to mitzvot, are
permitted. - “And speaking idle words” means that your speech on Shabbat should not be like
your speech during the week, i.e., one should not discuss his weekday affairs on Shabbat.
However, it is only speech that they said is prohibited, whereas merely contemplating weekday
affairs is permitted.

A midrash is cited in Tosafot that is also brought in the Jerusalem Talmud states that the Sages
prohibited speaking excessively on Shabbat.

Some commentaries wrote that people should not exert themselves on Shabbat, even to discuss
Torah matters.

Aderet Eliyahu suggests that the Gemara means to say that one should not speak in languages
other than Hebrew. (This custom was observed by many over the generations).

The Gemara discusses how one’s walking should differ on Shabbat from the rest of the week,
concluding that pesia gassa – taking large steps – is prohibited. The Hebrew word gassa, which
means large in this context, literally means “crass.”

People who take large steps on Shabbat create the impression that they are rushing to their
business, which is obviously inappropriate on Shabbat.

Consequently, the phrase pesia gassa literally means “a crass step.” The Gemara states that taking
large steps detracts from one’s vision. Some commentaries interpret the idea of one’s vision
returning to him at kiddush to mean that resting on Shabbat heals that which was damaged during
the week’s exertions.1

What is the lesson of this Gemara? What is the vision loss mentioned here, and how does the
Kiddush on Shabbos serve as a remedy for this problem?

Abraham asked the Arab guests who were about to enter his house to rinse off the dust from their
feet. Our sages tell us that Arabs worship the dust upon which they tread, and this is why Abraham
was careful to have this idolatrous matter removed before allowing them into his tent. What does
this mean?

R’ Yaakov of Lisa (the Nesivos) explains that earning a living requires that we put forth a proper
effort to succeed. However, we recognize we are only going through an exercise in the realm of
‫ – השתדלות‬making normal and routine efforts, while we fully acknowledge that our successes are
totally in the hands of Hashem.

If a person believes that he is the master of his own profits, and that his treading from one location
to another is what creates his success, this borders on the verge of idolatry. The Arabs who visited
Abraham were of this philosophy. They had an attitude of self-reliance which was “the dust of

1
Steinzalts on Shabbes 113

4
their travels” which they worshipped, and this is what Avraham refused to bring into his tent.
Instead, Abraham instilled his acquaintances with an outlook of trust in the Creator of the World.

The holy Kotzker Rebbe explains the words of Yosef to his brothers using this approach. After
Yosef identified himself to his brothers, the sons of Yaakov wanted to quickly return and inform
their father that Yosef was alive. However, Yosef warned them

‫ ַוֵיֵּלכוּ; ַויּ ֹאֶמר‬,‫ֶאָחיו‬-‫כד ַו ְיַשַׁלּח ֶאת‬ 24 So he sent his brethren away, and they departed; and he said
.{‫ִתּ ְרְגּזוּ ַבָּדֶּר‬-‫ ַאל‬,‫ֲאֵלֶהם‬ unto them: 'See that ye fall not out by the way.'

Gen 45:24

“Do not rush along the way”. According to the Kotzker, Yosef told them that Hashem was in full
control of all events. Yaakov would find out about the events that had transpired in Egypt, and
whether they would try to speed along or proceed at a normal rate, there was nothing they could
do to rush the matter.

Hashem was orchestrating events so that nothing would happen sooner than it should occur, and
nothing would delay matters. They were to do whatever they could and trying to push the matter
was futile.

Rabbi Yitzchok Feigenbaum, zt”l, the former Dayan of Warsaw, explains that a person who
believes that he can force matters beyond that which Hashem has in store is displaying a lack of
clear vision of trust in Hashem’s overall supervision of the world. This is the one-five-hundredth
of blindness which the Gemara describes.

Therefore, it is precisely the moment a person sits to recite Kiddush that this error can be corrected.
As we recite Kiddush, we declare that Hashem created the world and that He controls everything.
Although we must do our task, and that we do not rely upon miracles, we honor and sanctify the
Shabbos with ascribing to Hashem the mastery and power which is His.

The partial blindness is healed, as our (spiritual) vision is restored and our sight is brought into
focus.2

2
Daf Digest Shabbes 113

5
Ben Yehoyada (Ben Ish Chai) has a cute gematria equating the Kiddush with healing:

The Beraisa teaches that one should not walk on Shabbos the same way he walks during the week.
The Gemara asks what type of walking is permitted during the week but is not permitted on
Shabbos.

The Gemara answers by citing a dialogue between Rebbi and Rebbi Yishmael b'Rebbi Yosi,
who discussed whether one is permitted to walk with Pesi'ah Gasah (large steps) on Shabbos.

When Rebbi asked whether one may walk with Pesi'ah Gasah on Shabbos, Rebbi Yishmael
responded that not only is walking in such a way forbidden on Shabbos, but it is also forbidden
during the week, because Pesi'ah Gasah takes away 1/500th of a person's eyesight.

How does the Gemara answer its original question, what type of walking is permitted during the
week but prohibited on Shabbos?

The Gemara concludes that walking with Pesi'ah Gasah is prohibited even during the week, and
thus there is no difference between Shabbos and the rest of the week!

MAHARSHA: Rebbi Yishmael b'Rebbi Yosi said that the reason one may not walk with Pesi'ah
Gasah during the week is because it is dangerous to one's health. However, there is no prohibition
or enactment per se that forbids it. On Shabbos, though, there is an enactment that forbids one

6
from walking with Pesi'ah Gasah, in addition to the health risk that it poses. The prohibition is
Divrei Kabalah, as derived from the verse in Isaiah.

SEFAS EMES explains that when Rebbi questioned whether Pesi'ah Gasah is permitted on
Shabbos, he was not referring to the normal form of Pesi'ah Gasah. Walking with large steps is
certainly forbidden on Shabbos as well as during the week.

Rather, he was asking whether normal-sized steps are permitted on Shabbos, or whether one must
walk with smaller than usual steps on Shabbos. When the Beraisa says that one should walk
differently on Shabbos, it means that one should take smaller steps than he takes during the week.
Rebbi Yishmael b'Rebbi Yosi apparently misunderstood Rebbi's question and thought that he
was referring to taking larger than normal steps on Shabbos, and that is why he responded that
even during the week such steps are prohibited.

This may be the meaning of the phrase, "Pos'im Bo Pesi'ah Ketanah" -- "We walk on it (Shabbos)
with small steps," which we say in the Shabbos song, "Kol Mekadesh Shevi'i." On Shabbos we
must walk differently than we walk during the week, and we must take smaller steps than usual
(like Rebbi's ruling).

TOSFOS (Ta'anis (10b, DH Pesi'ah Gasah) concludes that it is only the first step of Pesi'ah Gasah
that takes away a fraction of one's eyesight. The subsequent steps have no effect.

Accordingly, the Gemara here may mean that even after one has already walked one step with
Pesi'ah Gasah, he is still not permitted to walk another Pesi'ah Gasah on Shabbos even though it
is no longer harmful to his eyesight.

Rebbi Yishmael b'Rebbi Yosi merely said that one should not enter a situation in which he is
permitted to walk with Pesi'ah Gasah in the first place. Rather, one should be careful never to take
the first step of Pesi'ah Gasah.3

HALACHA

Although it is prohibited to speak about certain matters on Shabbat, there is no prohibition

against contemplating weekday matters.

However, in the interest of experiencing a pleasurable Shabbat, it is fitting to be stringent and

avoid thinking about weekday matters as well:

‫ וִּמְפֵּני ָמה ֶנֶאְסרוּ‬.‫שֵׁאיָנם דּוִֹמין ִלְמָלאָכה ְוֵאיָנם ְמִביִאין ִליֵדי ְמָלאָכה‬ ֶ ‫שָׁבּת ַאף ַﬠל ִפּי‬ ַ ‫שֵׁהן ְאסוּ ִרין ְבּ‬
ֶ ‫ֵישׁ ְדָּב ִרים‬
‫שֶׁנֱּאַמר‬
ֶ ‫ ְבּיוֹם ָקְדִשׁי" ְוֶנֱאַמר " )ישעיה נח יג(ִמשּׁוּם‬7‫ ֲﬠשׂוֹת ֲחָפֶצי‬7‫)ישעיה נח יג(ִאם ָתִּשׁיב ִמַשָּׁבּת ַרְגֶל‬
" ‫ ַבֲּחָפָציו ְבַּשָׁבּת ַוֲאִפלּוּ ְלַדֵבּר ָבֶּהן‬m‫ ָאסוּר ְלָאָדם ְלַהֵלּ‬m‫ ְלִפיָכ‬."‫ ְוַדֵבּר ָדָּבר‬7‫ ִמְמּצוֹא ֶחְפְצ‬7‫ְוִכַבְּדתּוֹ ֵמֲﬠשׂוֹת ְדּ ָרֶכי‬
‫ ָכּל ֶזה‬.‫ ְלָמקוֹם ְפּלוֹ ִני‬m‫ ִיְבֶנה ַבּ ִית ֶזה וְּבֵאי ֶזה ְסחוֹ ָרה ֵיֵל‬m‫שָׁתּפוֹ ַמה ִיְּמֹכּר ְלָמָחר אוֹ ַמה ִיְּקֶנה אוֹ ֵהיַא‬ ֻ ‫ְכּגוֹן ֶשׁ ְיַּדֵבּר ִﬠם‬
‫ ְוַכיּוֵֹצא בּוֹ ָאסוּר ֶשֶׁנֱּאַמר ְוַדֵבּר ָדָּבר ִדּבּוּר ָאסוּר ִה ְרהוּר ֻמָתּר‬:

3
Rav Mordechai Kornfeld Daf Advancement Forum

7
Some acts are forbidden on the Sabbath even though they neither resemble nor lead to prohibited
work. Why then were they forbidden? Because it is written: "If you refrain from following your
business on the Sabbath, on my holy day… If you honor it, not following your wonted ways, not
pursuing your business, nor speaking of it" (Isaiah 58:13). Hence, one is forbidden to go anywhere
on the Sabbath in connection with his business, or even to talk about it.
Thus, one must not discuss with his partner what to sell on the next day, or what to buy, or how to
build a certain house, or what merchandise to take to such-and-such a place.

All this, and the like, is forbidden, for it is written "nor speaking of it." That is to say, speaking of
business on the Sabbath is forbidden; thinking of it, however, is permitted.

Sefer Zemanim, Hilkhot Shabbat 24:1;

‫ ובו י"ד סעיפים‬.‫באיזה חפצים מותר לדבר בשבת‬:

‫ממצוא חפציך חפציך אסורים אפי' בדבר שאינו עושה שום מלאכה כגון שמעיין נכסיו לראות מה צריך למחר או לילך‬
‫לפתח המדינה כדי שימהר לצאת בלילה למרחץ וכן אין מחשיכים על התחום לשכור פועלים אבל מחשיך על התחום‬
‫להביא בהמתו וי"א שאם אין הבהמה יכולה לילך ברגלים כגון שהוא טלה קטן אינו רשאי להחשיך דאינו רשאי להביא‬
‫דאסור לטלטל ב"ח שהם מוקצים‬: ‫ )מרדכי סוף פרק‬.‫הגה וה"ה דאסור לטייל למצוא סוס או ספינה או קרון לצאת בו‬
‫)מי שהחשיך‬:

Orach Chayim 306:8

One must wear bigdei Shabbos and not bigdei chol, and this is a fulfillment of kavod Shabbos.
There are some opinions that this requirement is a biblical obligation and is a fulfillment of the
description of Shabbos and Yom Tov and “mikraei kodesh,” while others hold that it is a rabbinical
obligation.4

Shulchan Aruch HaRav 242:1

4
The Rambam adds that if one only has one set of clothes and cannot afford a separate set of clothes for Shabbos, he or she should
at least make every effort to make sure his clothes are clean for Shabbos.

8
Our Daf ends as follows:

‫ ְדּ ַרִבּי‬,‫ ַרִבּי יוָֹחָנן ְלַטְﬠֵמיהּ‬.‫ ְול ֹא ְכּבוֹדוֹ ַמָמּשׁ‬,‫ ״ ְוַתַחת ְכּבוֹדוֹ״‬:‫ ָאַמר ַרִבּי יוָֹחָנן‬.‫״ ְוַתַחת ְכּבוֹדוֹ ֵיַקד ְיקוֹד ִכּיקוֹד ֵאשׁ״‬
‫יוָֹחָנן ָק ֵרי ְלָמאֵניהּ ״ְמַכְבּדוַֹתי״‬.

It was mentioned earlier that Rabbi Yoḥanan called his clothing his honor. The Gemara cites the
interpretation of the verse that speaks about the downfall of the king of Assyria:

--‫ ְבִּמְשַׁמָנּיו‬,‫טז ָלֵכן ְיַשַׁלּח ָהָאדוֹן ְיהָוה ְצָבאוֹת‬ 16 Therefore will the Lord, the LORD of hosts, send
.‫ ִכּיקוֹד ֵאשׁ‬,‫ָרזוֹן; ְוַתַחת ְכֹּבדוֹ ֵיַקד ְיֹקד‬ among his fat one’s leanness; and under

Isaiah 10:16

Rabbi Yoḥanan said: “And under his honor,” but not his actual honor. The Gemara explains:
Rabbi Yoḥanan follows his own reasoning, for he called his clothing my honor, which means
that the bodies of the king of Assyria’s soldiers were burned. However, their garments were
miraculously not burned.

‫ ״ַתַּחת ְכּבוֹדוֹ״ — ִכְּשׂ ֵריַפת ְבֵּני‬:‫ ַרִבּי ְשׁמוֵּאל ַבּר ַנְחָמ ִני ָאַמר‬.‫ ״ ְוַתַחת ְכּבוֹדוֹ״ — ַתַּחת ְכּבוֹדוֹ ַמָמּשׁ‬:‫ַרִבּי ֶאְלָﬠָזר אוֵֹמר‬
‫ ַאף ָכּאן ְשׂ ֵריַפת ְנָשָׁמה ְוגוּף ַקָיּים‬,‫ ַמה ְלַּהָלּן ְשׂ ֵריַפת ְנָשָׁמה ְוגוּף ַקָיּים‬.‫ַאֲהֹרן‬.

Rabbi Elazar said: “And under his honor” means in place of his actual honor. That is to say,
their bodies were burned. Since, in Rabbi Elazar’s opinion, the word under means in the place of,
the verse accordingly means that in the place of his honor, i.e., the body, there remain ashes.
Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani said: Under his honor means beneath his flesh, similar to the
burning of the sons of Aaron. Just as there, i.e., the burning of Aaron’s sons, the soul burned
while the body remained intact, so too here, i.e., the burning of Assyrian soldiers, the soul burned
while the body remained intact.

Rabbi Elazar said: “And under his honor” means in place of his actual honor. That is to say, their
bodies were burned. Since, in Rabbi Elazar’s opinion, the word under means in the place of, the
verse accordingly means that in the place of his honor, i.e., the body, there remain ashes.

Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani said: Under his honor means beneath his flesh, similar to the burning
of the sons of Aaron. Just as there, i.e., the burning of Aaron’s sons, the soul burned while the
body remained intact, so too here, i.e., the burning of Assyrian soldiers, the soul burned while the
body remained intact.

The different opinions in this matter depend on the interpretation of the phrase his honor. Rabbi
Yoḥanan interprets honor in this context as honorable clothing.

However, other Sages understand honor as referring to the soul that dwells within the body. This
connotation appears elsewhere in the Bible, such as in the verse:

9
 -‫ַוָיֶּגל ְכּבוִֹדי; ַאף‬--‫ ָשַׂמח ִלִבּי‬,‫ט ָלֵכן‬ 9 Therefore my heart is glad, and my glory rejoiceth; my
.‫ ִיְשֹׁכּן ָלֶבַטח‬,‫ְבָּשׂ ִרי‬ flesh also dwelleth in safety;

Psalms 16:9

An alternative explanation is that the phrase my honor can be interpreted as referring to the body.
Further to honor as clothing and Ruth as the pious convert who is brought as the prooftext for
this halacha:

Sara Ronis is an assistant professor of Theology at St. Mary’s University in San Antonio, TX5

‫ ״ַוֵתּ ֶרד‬:‫ ְוִאילּוּ ְבִּדיַדהּ ְכִּתיב‬,‫ ְוָי ַרְדְתּ ַהֹגּ ֶרן״‬m‫ ָﬠַל ִי‬m‫ַת ִי‬l‫שְׂמְתּ ִשְׂמ‬
ַ ‫ ְדִּאילּוּ ָנֳﬠִמי ָקָאְמ ָרה ַלהּ ״ ְו ָרַחְצְתּ ָוַסְכְתּ ְו‬,‫רוּת‬
‫ ַוֲהַדר ״ַוַתַּﬠשׂ ְכֹּכל ֲאֶשׁר ִצַוָּתּה ֲחמוָֹתהּ״‬,‫ַהֹגּ ֶרן״‬

Whereas Naomi said to Ruth: “And you shall bathe, and anoint yourself, and put on your robes,
and go down to the threshing floor,” but with regard to Ruth herself it is written, “And she went
down to the threshing floor” (Ruth 3:6), and only afterward does it say, “And she did according to
all that her mother-in-law commanded her.” Ruth decided to anoint herself at the threshing floor
and not on the road so that people would not meet her on the way there and suspect her of
immorality.

In discussing the ways that we mark Shabbat as different with the fullness of our bodies —
the clothes we wear, the words we speak and even the ways that we walk — today’s daf digresses
into a discourse of praise for the biblical Ruth.

Ruth was a Moabite who developed a fierce loyalty to her Israelite mother-in-law Naomi, a loyalty
undiminished by the untimely death of her Israelite husband. Once widowed, Ruth followed Naomi
back to the land of Israel and not only took care of the older woman, but also adopted Israelite
religion and customs. Ruth ultimately remarried and became the great-grandmother of one of
Israel’s most esteemed rulers, King David. Throughout Jewish history, Ruth has been upheld as a
paragon of goodness and loyalty, and a model for Jewish conversion.

The daf’s focus on Ruth begins by citing her care in dressing as a model for how we should attire
ourselves on Shabbat. After receiving an entire season of generosity at the hands of a kind man
named Boaz, Ruth’s mother-in-law Naomi suggests that she dress herself up to go meet him for a
more romantic purpose: And you shall bathe, and anoint yourself, and put on your robes.

5
community@myjewishlearning.com

10
 ‫ ְוַשְׂמְתּ שמלתך‬,‫ג ְו ָרַחְצְתּ ָוַסְכְתּ‬ 3 Wash thyself therefore, and anoint thee, and put thy raiment
(‫וירדתי ) ְוָי ַר ְדְתּ‬--€‫( ָﬠַל ִי‬€‫)ִשְׂמ•ַת ִי‬ upon thee, and get thee down to the threshing-floor; but make
‫ ַﬠד ַכּ…תוֹ ֶלֱאֹכל‬,‫ִתָּוּ ְדִﬠי ָלִאישׁ‬-‫ַהֹגּ ֶרן; ַאל‬ not thyself known unto the man, until he shall have done
.‫ְוִלְשׁתּוֹת‬ eating and drinking.

Ruth 3:3

As Rabbi Elazar explains on our daf: These robes are Shabbat garments. But he takes quite a bit
more than sartorial advice from this remarkable woman. Though Naomi instructed her daughter-
in-law to dress and then go meet her future husband, Rabbi Elazar’s close reading of the biblical
text shows that Ruth alters the order — first going to the meeting point, and only then dressing
herself for the encounter. For Rabbi Elazar, this is a sign of her estimable modesty.

The Gemara goes on to highlight other ways in which Ruth displays various virtues, including
wisdom and adherence to rabbinic law. But it gets even better. Three competing rabbinic
interpretations of a single verse,

‫ ֹגִּשׁי ֲה•ם‬,‫יד ַויּ ֹאֶמר ָלה ֹבַﬠז ְלֵﬠת ָהֹאֶכל‬ 14 And Boaz said unto her at mealtime: 'Come hither, and
;‫ ַבֹּחֶמץ‬,€‫ ְוָטַבְלְתּ ִפֵּתּ‬,‫ַהֶלֶּחם‬-‫ְוָאַכְלְתּ ִמן‬ eat of the bread, and dip thy morsel in the vinegar.' And she
,‫ָלהּ ָקִלי‬-‫ ַו ִיְּצָבּט‬,‫ ִמַצּד ַהֹקְּצ ִרים‬,‫ַוֵתֶּשׁב‬ sat beside the reapers; and they reached her parched corn,
.‫ַותּ ֹאַכל ַוִתְּשַׂבּע ַוֹתַּתר‬ and she did eat and was satisfied, and left thereof.

Ruth 2:14

(which describes Ruth sitting down to lunch with her future husband), heap wider and wider praise
on this remarkable woman whose righteousness becomes a credit to the entire Israelite nation,
with sweeping historical reach:

Rabbi Elazar said: And she ate was fulfilled by her children’s children in the days of David; and
she was satiated was fulfilled in the days of Solomon; and she left some over was fulfilled in the
days of Hezekiah.

And some say: And she ate was fulfilled in the days of David and Solomon; and she was
satiated was fulfilled in the days of Hezekiah; and she left some over was fulfilled in the days of
Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. As the Master said: Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi’s horsekeeper was richer
than the king of Persia.

It was taught: And she ate in this world; and she was satiated in the days of the Messiah; and
she left some over in the future, at the end of days.

This one verse inspires the rabbis to imagine that Ruth’s actions have brought merit and good
fortune to the Israelite nation over the entire span of Jewish history, from the glory days of

11
kings David and Solomon, to the rabbinic flourishing in the Roman period, and even into the
Messianic era and beyond.

All the while, in the Hebrew Bible, Ruth is habitually referred to with an outsider epithet: Moabite,
even after she has sworn loyalty to the God and people of Israel. She is, as biblical scholar Gale
Yee has it, a “perpetual foreigner.”

On today’s daf Ruth is both repeatedly marked as foreign and the embodiment of Judaism. If Ruth
can embody Jewish ideals and bestow blessing on all of Jewish history without losing her original
identity, perhaps what we are being offered today is a different rabbinic understanding of
conversion — one in which the convert is both entirely Jewish and still closely, proudly identified
with her previous people. Identity is complex, and that complexity is powerful.

For Aviva Zornberg (echoing feminist scholars such as Julia Kristeva)6 the exempla of
Ruth have deeper and more ambivalent connotations than our pious daf.

The tactile imagery of devekut (clinging, stickiness) accompanies Ruth throughout her narrative.
She holds fast to Naomi, whose emptiness, as we have seen, is at first unappeased by her. Ignored
by the women of Bethlehem, Ruth then proposes to find a field in which to glean— “following
someone in whose eyes I may find favor.” She is casting herself into the drift of chance and desire.
In this world of narrative, the traveler has no guarantee of finding safe harbor.

With unusual pungency, the narrative declares, va-yiker mikrehah—“as luck would have it, it was
the land belonging to Boaz who was of Elimelekh’s family” (Ruth 2:3). Unwittingly, she has fallen
upon her destiny; her trajectory now holds out hope of a real “return” to Naomi’s family. But,
from Ruth’s perspective, she is taking her chances (lit., her chance chanced it).

The coincidence that brings her to Boaz’s field is of the kind that, retrospectively, can be read as
an accident that was meant to happen. But Ruth has no knowledge of the ending of her story.

In the drift of contingency, she enters a field; unknown to her, Boaz asks his servant about her:
“Whose is this young woman?” And the servant answers: “She is the Moabite woman, who
returned with Naomi from the fields of Moab” (Ruth 2:5–6).

The reader is caught in the subtle anguish of narrative. Ruth is being maligned: twice in one
sentence, the servant has managed to refer to her Moabite origin—and this, after the narrator has
reintroduced her at the beginning of the chapter as Ruth the Moabite. All the hopelessness of her
situation is here, insult added to injury. What is the servant implying as he harps on her
background?

“Whose is this young woman?” Did he not then recognize her? But when he saw how attractive
she was, and how modest her comportment, he began to inquire about her.

6
Aviva Zornberg http://www.jewishsagesoftoday.com/pdf/zornberg/Zornberg%20Chapter%2012.pdf

12
All the other women bend down to gather the ears of corn, but she sits and gathers; all the other
women hitch up their skirts, and she keeps hers down; all the other women jest with the reapers,
while she is reserved; all the other women gather from between the sheaves, while she gathers
from that which is already abandoned.

The midrash finely inflects the dialogue. Why did Boaz ask about Ruth? Surely, he knew of her?
Soon after, in fact, he will tell her of her admirable reputation for chesed, loving-kindness. His
question, however, is “Whose is she?”—meaning that he is impressed by her bearing, her modesty
and intelligence, and implying: “Could she be mine? Could she belong to my world?”

Generations later, the same question will be asked by Saul about David, implicitly about his
potential for positions of power. Immediately, David will be disparaged by Doeg, on the grounds
of his impure descent from Ruth the Moabitess.

A debate breaks out: on a closer look at the biblical text, it has become clear that only the male
Moabite is banned from the community of God, not the female.

The law has been revised, since this gender distinction makes room for Ruth to marry Boaz.

But is this not a mere verbal quibble, which could be extended ad absurdum to all such marital
bans? No, declares Samuel; here the issue of greeting and feeding strangers would exempt women
on the grounds of modesty; the cultural codes of the time would make that obvious.

One specific dimension of her reviled status is the sexual notoriety of Moabite women. Zenut,
sexual seduction, sexual waywardness, has marked the Moabite story from its origins. We
remember how, after the destruction of Sodom, Lot’s daughters made their father drunk and had
sexual relations with him.

But it was the daughter who inscribed the incest into her son’s name (Mo’av=Me-avi [from my
father]) who exposed the act of darkness to the light. Later, it was the women of Moab who enticed
Israel into the sin of Ba’al-peor (Num. 25:1).

This association of Moab—and, particularly of its women—with lasciviousness accompanies Ruth

throughout her dealings with the world of Bethlehem.

She becomes the embodiment of what Julia Kristeva calls the abject: that which is cast out of the
self and considered loathsome: The abject confronts us, on the one hand, with those fragile states
where man strays on the territory of animal.

Thus, by way of abjection, primitive societies have marked out a precise area of their culture in
order to remove it from the threatening world of animals and animalism, which were imagined as
representatives of sex and murder. The abject confronts us, on the other hand, and this time within
our personal archeology, with our earliest attempts to release the hold of maternal entity even
before existing outside of her, thanks to the autonomy of language.

13
 Both upheld by taboos and a focus of fascination, the abject rouses fear of the loss of boundaries.
Ruth’s transactions with Boaz can be read as marked by such an ambiguity. After the servant has
answered Boaz’s question and Boaz has kindly opened up the field for her gleaning, her first
speech transforms her from an object discussed by others into a linguistic being, neither animal
nor the mother of early, preverbal life:

;‫ ָא ְרָצה‬,‫ ַוִתְּשַׁתּחוּ‬,‫ָפֶּניָה‬-‫ ַﬠל‬,‫י ַוִתֹּפּל‬ 10 Then she fell on her face, and bowed down to the ground, and
‫ ַמדּוַּﬠ ָמָצאִתי ֵחן‬,‫ַותּ ֹאֶמר ֵאָליו‬ said unto him: 'Why have I found favor in thy sight, that thou
.‫ ָנְכ ִרָיּה‬,‫ ְוָא ֹנִכי‬--‫ְבֵּﬠיֶני¡ ְלַהִכּי ֵר ִני‬ shouldest take cognizance of me, seeing I am a foreigner?'

Ruth 2:10

In addressing him, she in a sense responds to his question: “Do you not hear me, my daughter?”
(Ruth 2:8). Something unresponsive in her moves him to ask, do you hear? Do you understand my
language? But strikingly, her answer questions the very possibility of his recognition of her.

The Gaon comments: Falling on her face expresses a certain dejection. Ruth sees that Boaz has
spoken kindly to her, as though he means to marry her, and yet he adds, “So shall you cling to my
servant girls,” classing her with his servants and making no further move of courtship.
Nevertheless, she bows down in gratitude for his kind words, and she says, “Why have I found
favor in your eyes to recognize me, to single me out, as though you will know me as a wife?”

But again, “I am a stranger”: it is clear from your last words that I am a foreigner. I don’t
understand your meaning!

On this reading, Ruth is acutely sensitive to the ambivalence that Boaz displays toward her.

The law may have been changed, but Ruth is depressingly conscious of the residues of the old
boundaries: Boaz is blowing hot and cold.

What might have been a moment of closure remains tantalizingly ambiguous—and keeps the
narrative going in all its danger and possibility.

Zornberg is not afraid to look into corners, open doors, move from room to room in her thought
process. If the Bible - Torah - exists for us mere mortals to understand and use as a guide for life,
then we must examine it from every possible angle: historical, psychological, mystical,
pedagogical.

14
 Clothing Maketh the man

Costly thy habit as thy purse can buy,

But not expressed in fancy—rich, not gaudy,
For the apparel oft proclaims the man,
And they in France of the best rank and station
Are of a most select and generous chief in that.

15
These lines are from Shakespeare's Hamlet, in which Polonius advises his son Laertes to be
conservative in his conduct and clothing before he leaves for France--ironically, of course, because
Polonius himself is a meddler and court sycophant. The old courtier cautions his son to be wise in
his tastes and behavior, speaking in platitudes. His line that "apparel oft proclaims the man" is
expressed in modern times as "the clothes make the man"; meaning that people form judgments
about others based upon the clothes that they wear. Polonius instructs Laertes that he will appear
to be noble if he so dresses, especially in France where appearances are everything.

A hilarious example of this statement of Polonius is found in another of Shakespeare's

plays, Twelfth Night. In this comedy which is about the inversion of social and personal
expectations, a practical joke is played upon a sour, humorless Puritan named Malvolio. He is
convinced by others that if he wears yellow stockings and crossed garters, he will win the love of
Olivia, a beautiful noblewoman he desires. Instead, she laughs at his foolish clothing, thinking
him mad.

In A Midsummer Night’s Dream one of the key turns of the plot involves the sprite Puck casting
a spell on the wrong young lover, because his only instructions were to enchant one with “Athenian
garb.”

Judging on fashion alone, poor Puck thought he had discharged his duties. Puck’s comedic error
is of course another instance of one of Shakespeare’s favorite themes, the way our clothing
becomes synonymous with our identity.

Returning to the context of Polonius’s charge to his son, in Hamlet, this nugget of wisdom means
that fashion may define you.

But Shakespeare himself was alluding to a deeper wisdom that we find throughout the Bible and
in particular in the opening chapters of Genesis, where the first humans discover shame in their
nakedness.

Clothing makes the man means that our use of garments is what makes us human. Clothing creates
boundaries between one human being and another, placing limits on interpersonal intimacy and on
the vulnerability it inevitably induces. In our clothes, we are ostensibly protected from shame, the
ultimate form of degradation.7

The Torah’s first mention of clothes appears quite near the beginning of Genesis (Ch. 3).
Immediately after Adam and Eve sinned, they realized they were naked and as a result sewed
clothes for themselves.

Why after Adam and Eve sinned did they immediately realize they required clothes? And how
could they have gone about without them up until then — during their very brief stay in the
Garden?

7
WILLIAM PLEVAN, ADJUNCT PROFESSOR OF JEWISH THOUGHT JTS, http://www.jtsa.edu/clothes-that-make-us-human

16
The basic answer lies in an understanding of man’s Primordial Sin.

Adam and Eve partook of the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge — a tree which provided them with
the knowledge of good and evil. Very briefly, before the Sin man was a wholly good and pure
being. He had no inner desire for evil.

The force of evil was an outside force, embodied in the Biblical Serpent luring man to sin. Man’s
body, however, was entirely “good”: It had no inner desire to do anything other than the bidding
of its soul. Thus, if procreation was a Divine command (as man was instructed to “be fruitful and
multiply” (1:28)), it was an entirely pure and natural act. And naturally, any act which fulfilled
God's will brought the greatest of pleasure.

After the Sin, however, man acquired the knowledge of good and evil.

The meaning is that man now had an intimate knowledge of — and desire for — both good and
evil. The desire for sin was no longer the lure of an outside Serpent. Man, himself wanted to sin.
The evil inclination resided within his very bosom. Man became a confused mixture of good and
evil, never again to be entirely sure if the true him was a servant of G-d or not.

At this point, man’s relationship with his body changed entirely. Beforehand, his body was nothing
other than an agent of his soul, containing no other drive than to follow the dictates of his soul.
Now his body had a mind(!) of its own. It would pull equally strong in the opposite direction,
following its selfish and animalistic desires. Within man now lay the desire to live for himself.
Man would henceforth be pulled simultaneously in opposite directions, his body and soul battling
perpetually for control and supremacy.

For this reason, clothing became necessary. The purpose was not to enhance man’s appearance,
to make social statements, or even (primarily) to keep him warm.

It was to properly define just who man is. Adam and Eve realized they could no longer be totally
comfortable with their sexuality. They could easily view themselves primarily as physical beings,
as ones who live for the needs and desires of their flesh. And they could likewise view each other
in that same selfish light — as bodies to be taken advantage of for their own pleasure.

Adam and Eve realized they had to dispel this notion — as well as keep their passions in check.
Their flesh would have to be covered as a way of downplaying their bodies, as a means of stating
the flesh is not whom they truly are. Their nakedness was covered so that no one would mistake
the human body as the primary person. It was minimized, de-emphasized. It had to be made clear
that the true value of the human being was his soul underneath.8

8
Based on the writings of Aryeh Kaplan and Rabbi Leff: Rabbi Dovid Rozenfeld, https://torah.org/learning/mlife-chapter5-9/

17
 ‫ ג( ְו ָרַחְצְתּ ָוַסְכְתּ‬,‫)רות ג‬, ,m‫ ָﬠַל ִי‬m‫ַת ִי‬l‫ ְוַשְׂמְתּ ִשְׂמ‬.‫ ָוַסְכְתּ ֵאלּוּ ִמְצווֹת וְּצָדקוֹת‬,m‫ְו ָרַחְצְתּ ִמִטּנּוֶֹפת ֲﬠבוַֹדת כּוָֹכִבים ֶשָׁלּ‬
‫ ֶאָחד ַלֹחל ְוֶאָחד‬,‫ ָאָדם ִלְהיוֹת לוֹ ְשֵׁני ֲﬠָטִפים‬m‫ ִמָכּאן ָאַמר ַרִבּי ֲח ִניָנא ָצ ִרי‬,‫ ֶאָלּא ֵאלּוּ ִבְּגֵדי ַשְׁבָּתא‬,‫ְוִכי ֲﬠֻרָמּה ָה ְיָתה‬
‫שָּׁבּת‬ַ ‫ַל‬
‫ ְוַשְׂמְתּ שמלתך‬,‫ג ְוָרַחְצְתּ ָוַסְכְתּ‬ 3 Wash thyself therefore, and anoint thee, and put thy raiment
(‫וירדתי ) ְוָיַרְדְתּ‬--{‫ַת ִי{( ָﬠַל ִי‬ž‫)ִשְׂמ‬ upon thee, and get thee down to the threshing-floor; but make
‫ ַﬠד ַכּ תוֹ ֶלֱאֹכל‬,‫ִתָּוְּדִﬠי ָלִאישׁ‬-‫ַהֹגֶּרן; ַאל‬ not thyself known unto the man, until he shall have done
.‫ְוִלְשׁתּוֹת‬ eating and drinking.
Ruth 3:3

"Wash yourself, and anoint yourself (Ruth 3:3): "wash" yourself from the soiling of idolatry, "and
anoint": this means with mitzvot and righteousness. "And put your raiment upon thee" because she
was naked, but rather "Shabbat clothes".

From this Rabbi Chanina said: "it is required that a man have for himself two cloaks, one for
weekdays and one of Shabbat", and thus Rabbi Simlai interpreted in public and they wept saying
"as we dress on weekdays, so we dress on Shabbat."

The Midrash asks, was Ruth not fully clothed that she had to tell her “to put on her dress”? The
Midrash explains that Naomi was instructing her to remove her weekday clothes and put on her
Shabbos garments. Rav Chanina comments that we see from here that every person should have
two sets of clothing–one for Shabbos and one for the weekdays.

In Kabbalah as well we find that great spiritual significance is attributed to wearing bigdei
Shabbos. The Zohar says that just as one puts on special clothing on his physical body on Shabbos,
so, too, the neshamah receives special clothing full of spiritual light on Shabbos.

In modern depth psychology the clothing we wear reflects more than our self-identity
consciously: The ego gives us our subjective sense of identity, and is typically symbolized in
dreams by the dreamer or by a vehicle that the dreamer is in. In this article we explore a component
of the psyche closely associated with the ego which Jung called the persona.

“Persona” is derived from the Latin word for mask. In the theater of ancient Greece and Rome
actors would wear a mask to signify their character (e.g., parent, child, warrior, etc.).

18
In Jungian psychology9, persona refers to the role that people play in social settings and society
at large. The persona is closely connected to the ego because the role that we play in any social
situation tends to structure our conscious identity within that setting. For example, your behavior
and demeanor during a formal meeting with your boss may be quite different from what you would
display at a restaurant with your friends later that day.

Like the skin, which functions as a protective boundary between the body’s internal organs and
the outer world, the persona serves a similar function between our inner self (thoughts, emotions,
instinctual impulses, etc.) and our outer relationships.

Because we don’t want to be an “open book” to everyone we encounter, we wear a “cover,” our
public face.

In daily life our persona is reflected in our choice of clothing, makeup or hairstyle, the way we
speak, our posture and general demeanor. Even the type of car we drive, where we live, and our
community and organizational affiliations are aspects of our persona.

In dreams, the persona is most often symbolized by the clothes we are wearing.

Which brings us to the origin of the proverb “Clothes make the man” which seems like some
glib ad pitch made by Mad Men’s slick Don Draper, this proverb, meaning that people will judge
you by the clothes you wear, has quite an impressive literary pedigree: from Twain to Erasmus to
Quintilian to Homer.

Many articles mistakenly attribute the source of the proverb to Mark Twain (the pen name of
Samuel Langhorne Clemens). Indeed, Mark Twain (who made quite a fashion statement when he
began wearing white suits late in his career in 1906, only to be outdone by Tom Wolfe who
began wearing his iconic white suit early in his career in 1962) did write: “Clothes make the
man. Naked people have little or no influence on society” (More Maxims of Mark by Mark
Twain, edited by Merle Johnson, 1927).

But Twain was not the first to observe the human propensity to judge a book by its cover, as it
were. That proverb actually originated over 400 years earlier during the Middle Ages.

9
Jungian Psychology Series: The Persona: Andy Drymalski, Ed.D. 16 THOUGHTS ON “JUNGIAN PSYCHOLOGY SERIES:

THE PERSONA” http://jungstop.com/jungian-psychology-series-the-persona/

19
The most notable use of the proverb is found in the works of Erasmus (Desiderius Erasmus
Roterodamus) a Catholic priest, theologian, and social critic. Erasmus published Collectanea
Adagiorum (1500), an annotated collection of 800 Greek and Latin proverbs, and years later, an
expanded version, Adagiorum Chiliades (1508, 1536), containing 4,251 essays — a proverbial
encyclopedia of proverbs.

The proverb as it is recorded in Latin by Erasmus (Adagia 3.1.60) is: “vestis virum facit”
meaning “clothes makes the man.” In the Adagia, Erasmus quotes Quintilian’s (Marcus Fabius
Quintilianus) work, Institutions (orat. 8 pr. 20): “To dress within the formal limits and with an
air gives men, as the Greek line testifies, authority.”

Quintilian is, in turn, citing the work of Homer who wrote his epics about 7 or 8 B.C.. In
the Odyssey (6.29–30, 242–3, 236–7), the key lines are: “From these things, you may be sure,
men get a good report” and “At first I thought his [Ulysses] appearance was unseemly, but now
he has the air of the gods who dwell in the wide heaven.” Thus, the impact of making a good
impression by way of fine threads and bling was not lost on the great classic writers.

Variations of this proverb appear earlier than Erasmus however they appear in obscure works:
“Euer maner and clothyng makyth man” (Prov. Wisdom, 1400) and “Ffor clothyng oft maketh
man.” (Peter Idley’s Instructions to His Son, 1445).10

Costly thy habit as thy purse can buy,

But not expressed in fancy—rich, not gaudy,
For the apparel oft proclaims the man,
And they in France of the best rank and station
Are of a most select and generous chief in that.

Hamlet: Act 1 Scene 3 Page 3

10
Alexander Atkins https://medium.com/@alex_65670/what-is-the-origin-of-clothes-make-the-man-7f75e070bf45
Not to be one-upped by classical writers, Shakespeare (who wore his fine Elizabethan white ruff with great pride and dignity)
weighed in on the matter through Polonius: “The apparel oft proclaims the man” (The Tragedy of Hamlet, written around 1600 as
described above.

20