Q&A: Baby Carrier
Baby Carrier
Question
In the past, a rabbi came to our community who in the Haredi world is considered one of the great figures of one of their factions.
And he has some somewhat unusual books, like Your Goodness They Will Utter, It Is Our Duty to Praise, Delightful Bracelets, and others.
The synagogue and the many side sections were packed to capacity; people even came from nearby communities beyond the Sabbath boundary. The rabbi told the Talmudic story in tractate Ketubot about a woman whose son was walking behind her in the market. Criminals kidnapped him, and in her great despair she cried out over her son. They told her to come and they would bring him to her. She entered their hideout, and they assaulted her. At that time they enacted that a woman should not walk in the market with her son walking behind her.
Therefore: a baby carrier is forbidden… (in our community and the nearby ones, the custom is to use a baby carrier and not a stroller).
I cried out: it says, “and her son was walking, walking behind her” — that applies specifically when he is actually walking. But in a carrier she feels if they are taking him out, and they specifically enacted it only where, at the time of the kidnapping, she does not feel the kidnapping. And people also are not so brazen as to snatch him from right off the mother. About such a case the Sages did not enact anything. (What is in parentheses I did not argue out loud in front of the hundreds there, though afterward I explained it to members of the community.) But a carrier is permitted, because they did not decree about a carrier, and that kind of use is not similar to walking behind her.
That great rabbi stopped and looked for who I was, and praised the Torah scholar that I am (which I am not, and with God’s help and without making a vow I will never finish the entire Talmud — mainly because I see where rabbis deteriorate to, and how they drag the public into corruption, stupidity, and baseless hatred). He was interested: why do you think a carrier is different from walking? I told him yes, but he ruled that in his view it is the same thing, and a baby carrier is forbidden.
Who is right?
Answer
Well, it’s a good thing you didn’t reveal the name of that rabbi. Those works are completely anonymous, and surely no one will understand who you mean. The man is astonishingly eccentric (see also column 722).
This is a strange Jewish law, and as far as I know nobody is careful about it — and not without reason. It is extremely bizarre halakhic formalism, very fitting for Rabbi Zilberstein. The concern that someone will kidnap the son and abuse the woman does not exist today, and certainly it does not exist especially דווקא in a case where her son is behind her. True, when the reason lapses the enactment does not automatically lapse, but there are situations where it is self-evident that it is no longer relevant (see my article on repealing enactments nowadays). I have never heard of anyone being careful that a woman should not walk with her son behind her, not even regarding a baby carrier.
Although there are enactments of this kind that were apparently instituted because of a particular incident, behind them there is an independent rationale. In those cases there is room to preserve them even if the stated reason has lapsed. That does not seem to be the case here. Perhaps one could say that they simply wanted the woman to keep an eye on her child, and therefore she should place him in front of her. I don’t know. Bottom line: in practice, this Jewish law has lapsed.
His ruling that you quoted reminds me of another ruling of his regarding eating cholent on weekdays (especially on Thursday night): https://www.srugim.co.il/1148367-%D7%A4%D7%A1%D7%A7-%D7%94%D7%94%D7%9C%D7%9B%D7%94-%D7%A9%D7%9E%D7%98%D7%9C%D7%98%D7%9C-%D7%90%D7%AA-%D7%94%D7%A6%D7%99%D7%91%D7%95%D7%A8-%D7%94%D7%97%D7%A8%D7%93%D7%99-%D7%90%D7%A1%D7%95%D7%A8-%D7%9C
I’ll just comment on what you wrote at the end, that with God’s help (!) you will not finish the entire Talmud. I have to say that claim is infuriating, and the reasons you gave for it are pathetic.
Listen to Rabbi Michi.
Here is an example of a Torah scholar who is not corrupt, not messianic, not crazy, does not live in conspiracies and delusions, is not a Bibist, and is not disconnected.
Learn from him.
You can be a Torah scholar and still remain smart and a mensch.