Reference for Shabbat 123:21
לא קשיא הא כי קאי אדרבי מאיר הא כי קאי אדרבנן כי קאי אדרבי מאיר דאמר חייב חטאת אמר ליה פטור כי קאי אדרבנן דאמרי פטור אבל אסור אמר איהו מותר לכתחלה
— There R. Meir holds that night is a time for tefillin, and the Sabbath [too] is a time for tefillin: thus it is a positive precept not limited by time, and all such are incumbent upon women. But it is carrying out in a 'backhanded' manner?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 188, n. 2. This raises a difficulty on the Mishnah. Why is a woman culpable for going out wearing a signet ring, seeing that this is not the usual manner of carrying out an object? [Liability is incurred only when the work done is performed in the usual manner.] ');"><sup>18</sup></span> — Said R. Jeremiah: The reference is to a woman who is a charity overseer.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'treasurer'. She impresses the seal of her signet ring upon her orders for charity disbursements. Thus she usually wears the ring on her finger, and that is her way of carrying it out into the street. Yet since women do not generally wear such rings, this cannot be regarded as an ornament. — It is interesting to observe a woman occupying this position. ');"><sup>19</sup></span> Raba said [to him]: You have answered the case of a woman; but what can be said of a man?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 'Ulla states that a man is culpable for wearing a non-signet ring; but that too is a backhanded manner? ');"><sup>20</sup></span> Said Raba, [This is the answer:] Sometimes a man gives a signet-ring to his wife to take it to a chest, and she places it on her hand<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., on her finger. ');"><sup>21</sup></span> until she comes to the chest. And sometimes a woman gives a non-signet ring to her husband to take it to an artisan to be repaired, and he places it on his hand until he comes to the artisan.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Thus in both cases this becomes the usual manner of carriage. Hence the reference in the Mishnah is to any woman, not particularly a treasurer. ');"><sup>22</sup></span> NOR WITH A KOKLIAR, NOR WITH A KOBELETH. What is a KOKLIAR? — Said Rab: A brooch.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. note on Mishnah. ');"><sup>23</sup></span> KOBELETH? — Said Rab: A charm [bead] containing phyllon; and thus did R. Assi explain it: A charm containing phyllon. Our Rabbis taught: She may not go out with a kobeleth, and if she does, she incurs a sin-offering, this is R. Meir's view; while the Sages maintain: She may not go out, but if she does, she is not culpable. R. Eliezer ruled: A woman may go out with a kobeleth at the very outset. Wherein do they differ? R. Meir holds that it is a burden. Whereas the Rabbis hold that it is an ornament, and [she hence may not wear it at the outset] lest she remove it for display, and so come to carry it. But R. Eliezer argues: Whose practice is it to wear this? A woman with an unpleasant odour;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which the kobeleth counteracts. ');"><sup>24</sup></span> and such a woman will not remove it for display, and so will not come to carry it four cubits in the street. But it was taught: R. Eliezer declares [her] non culpable on account of a kobeleth and a flask of spikenard oil?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This implies that they may nevertheless not be worn. ');"><sup>25</sup></span> — There is no difficulty: the one [ruling] is in reference to R. Meir; the other, in reference to the Rabbis. [Thus:] when referring to R. Meir, who maintained that she is liable to a sin-offering, he [R. Eliezer] said to him that she is not culpable. When treating of the Rabbis who maintained that there is no culpability, yet it is forbidden, he ruled that it is permitted at the outset.