Rambam — 3 Perakimרמב״ם ג׳ פרקים

א׳הַמּוֹצִיא דָּבָר מֵרְשׁוּת הַיָּחִיד לִרְשׁוּת הרבִּים אוֹ מֵרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים לִרְשׁוּת הַיָּחִיד אֵינוֹ חַיָּב עַד שֶׁיּוֹצִיא מִמֶּנּוּ שִׁעוּר שֶׁמּוֹעִיל כְּלוּם. וְאֵלּוּ הֵן שִׁעוּרֵי הַהוֹצָאָה. הַמּוֹצִיא אָכְלֵי אָדָם כִּגְרוֹגֶרֶת. וּמִצְטָרְפִין זֶה עִם זֶה. וְהוּא שֶׁיִּהְיֶה כִּגְרוֹגֶרֶת מִן הָאֹכֶל עַצְמוֹ חוּץ מִן הַקְּלִפִּים וְהַגַּרְעִינִין וְהָעֵקְצִין וְהַסֻּבִּין וְהַמֻּרְסָן:

¹A person who transfers an article from a private domain into the public domain, or from the public domain into the private domain is not liable,1All the authorities agree that a person is not liable until he transfers an amount of a substance large enough to be of benefit to a person, and that it is forbidden to transfer any article regardless of its size. The commentaries question, however, whether transferring less than a beneficial amount is forbidden according to Torah law or whether the prohibition is merely Rabbinic in origin.Liability for most of the prohibitions of the Torah is associated with a specific measure (שיעור). For example, with regard to the majority of the prohibitions against eating forbidden foods, one is liable only if one eats a k'zayit (a measure of food the size of an olive). Should one eat less than that amount (חצי שיעור), one is considered to have transgressed the Torah's commandment. Nevertheless, one is not liable for punishment. (See Hilchot Ma'achalot Asurot 3:6, 7:15.)The Mishneh LaMelech states that this same principle applies with regard to transferring objects on the Sabbath. Although one is liable only for transferring a beneficial amount, transferring any amount is forbidden by the Torah itself.Note, however, Totza'ot Chayim (8) and others, who explain that according to the Rambam, there is no concept of חצי שיעור with regard to the prohibition against work on the Sabbath. On the Sabbath, a person is liable only for performing מלאכת מחשבת, "purposeful work." If an activity is not in itself beneficial, it does not serve a purpose. Therefore, it is not forbidden by the Torah on the Sabbath.Kinat Eliyahu notes that in Halachah 23, the Rambam states that "A person who transfers half of the prescribed measure [of a substance] is not liable." According to the principles the Rambam states in Chapter 1, Halachah 3, the use of the term "is not liable" (פטור) indicates that the prohibition was instituted by our Sages. Significantly, in Hilchot Ma'achalot Asurot, loc. cit., and in other places where the Rambam discusses this issue, he uses the term אסור, "forbidden." Thus the use of the term פטור in regard to the Sabbath laws clearly indicates a difference. See also S'dei Chemed, Klallim, Ma'areches Chatzi Shiur. unless he transfers an amount that will be beneficial [to accomplish a purpose].2See Chapter 12, Halachah 9, and notes. The following are the minimum amounts for which one is liable for transferring:3In this and in the following halachot, the Rambam proceeds to list the minimum amounts for which one is liable for transferring particular substances. As explained in Halachot 20-21, this applies when one transfers an object without any specific intent. If, however, one intends to use the article one transfers for a specific purpose, one is liable for transferring even a smaller amount.Human food, the size of a dried fig.4As the Rambam mentions in Chapter 8, Halachah 5, he considers a dried fig to be one-third the size of an egg. (As mentioned in the notes on that halachah, there are differing opinions regarding this measure.) Eating a smaller amount of food would not be significant at all. Therefore, one is not liable. This quantity may include a combination of [different types of foods],5I.e., it is not that one must transfer an amount equal to the size of a dried fig from one particular type of food. Even if one transfers this amount from a combination of different foods, one is liable. provided the amount of food itself is the size of a dried fig. The shells, the seeds, the stems, the chaff, and the bran are not included [in this measure].6For they are not food.

ב׳יַיִן כְּדֵי רֹבַע רְבִיעִית וְאִם הָיָה קָרוּשׁ בִּכְזַיִת. חֲלֵב בְּהֵמָה טְהוֹרָה כְּדֵי גְּמִיעָה וַחֲלֵב טְמֵאָה כְּדֵי לִכְחל עַיִן אַחַת. חֲלֵב אִשָּׁה וְלֹבֶן בֵּיצָה כְּדֵי לִתֵּן בִּמְשִׁיפָה. שֶׁמֶן כְּדֵי לָסוּךְ אֶצְבַּע קְטַנָּה שֶׁל רֶגֶל קָטָן בֶּן יוֹמוֹ. טַל כְּדֵי לָשׁוּף אֶת הַקִּילוֹרִין. וְקִילוֹר כְּדֵי לָשׁוּף בַּמַּיִם. וּמַיִם כְּדֵי לִרְחֹץ פְּנֵי מְדוּכָה. דְּבַשׁ כְּדֵי לִתֵּן עַל רֹאשׁ הַכָּתִית. דָּם וּשְׁאָר כָּל הַמַּשְׁקִין וְכָל הַשּׁוֹפְכִין כְּדֵי רְבִיעִית:

²[The minimum measure for which one is liable for transferring] wine is a quarter of a revi'it;7Shabbat 8:1 states "wine, enough to mix a cup." In his Commentary on the Mishnah, the Rambam explains that a cup refers to the cup over which the grace after meals was recited, which must contain a revi'it. The wines of the Talmudic period were stronger, and it was customary to mix three portions of water to every portion of wine. if it has congealed, a k'zayit. For the milk of a kosher animal, a gulp.8Tosafot 76b defines this as מלא לוגמיו, "a cheekful." The Maggid Mishneh, however, explains that a smaller measure is intended. For non-kosher milk, enough to apply to one eye. For a woman's milk and egg-white, enough to put in an ointment. For oil, enough to anoint the small toe of a newborn infant.Dew, enough to serve as a base for an eye ointment.9The popular translation of the Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah (loc. cit.) mentions "river water" instead of "dew." Rav Kapach explains, however, that this is an erroneous translation of the Arabic, and there, too, the Rambam's intent is "dew." An eye ointment, enough to be mixed with water [and be applied to an eye]. Water, enough for washing the surface of a mortar.10Rav Moshe Cohen objects to the fact that the Rambam mentioned a measure that is not spoken of in the Babylonian Talmud. The Maggid Mishneh notes that the Rambam's source is in the Jerusalem Talmud (Shabbat 8:1), which he favors in this instance, because there is a difference of opinion on this matter in the Babylonian Talmud. Honey,11This represents somewhat of a new concept, because generally the Sages followed the principle (Shabbat 78a) that whenever an object has both an uncommon use and a common use, we follow the more lenient measure. For this reason, kosher milk, although just as beneficial as an eyewash as non-kosher milk, is considered to be a food. Accordingly, it is given a more lenient measure.If so, the fact that honey is considered to be a salve instead of food raises questions. The Talmud, however, explains that since honey is also very commonly used as a salve, there is no difficulty. enough to apply to a wound.12In his Commentary on the Mishnah (Shabbat 6:8), the Rambam interprets this is as sores that come from improper amputations. (Note Rav Kapach's translation, which differs slightly from the standard text.) Blood, all other liquids, and all sewage water,13This is useful for mixing clay for building (Shabbat 78a). a revi'it.

ג׳תֶּבֶן תְּבוּאָה כִּמְלֹא פִּי פָּרָה. תֶּבֶן קִטְנִיּוֹת כִּמְלֹא פִּי גָּמָל. וְאִם הוֹצִיא תֶּבֶן קִטְנִיּוֹת לְהַאֲכִילוֹ לְפָרָה כִּמְלֹא פִּי פָּרָה. שֶׁהָאֲכִילָה עַל יְדֵי הַדְּחָק שְׁמָהּ אֲכִילָה. עָמִיר כִּמְלֹא פִּי טָלֶה. עֲשָׂבִים כִּמְלֹא פִּי גְּדִי. עֲלֵי שׁוּם וַעֲלֵי בְּצָלִים אִם הָיוּ לַחִים כִּגְרוֹגֶרֶת מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהֵן אָכְלֵי אָדָם. וִיבֵשִׁים כִּמְלֹא פִּי גְּדִי. וְאֵין מִצְטָרְפִין זֶה עִם זֶה לֶחָמוּר שֶׁבָּהֶן אֲבָל מִצְטָרְפִין לַקַּל שֶׁבָּהֶן. כֵּיצַד. הוֹצִיא תֶּבֶן תְּבוּאָה וְקִטְנִית. אִם יֵשׁ בִּשְׁנֵיהֶם כִּמְלֹא פִּי פָּרָה פָּטוּר. כִּמְלֹא פִּי גָּמָל חַיָּב. וְכֵן כָּל כַּיּוֹצֵא בָּזֶה לְעִנְיַן הַשַּׁבָּת:

³[The minimum measure for which one is liable for transferring] straw from grain is a cow's mouthful.14This is the most common use for this substance. Straw from beans, a camel's mouthful.15A larger measure than stated previously. Bean straw is harder than grain straw and is therefore given to camels, who have stronger jaws and larger mouths. If, however, one transfers bean straw with the expressed purpose of feeding it to a cow, one is liable for transferring a cow's mouthful.16This reflects a general principle applicable with regard to the minimum measures for which one is liable for transferring: When a person has an individual desire for an object that makes it beneficial for him, he is liable even though most people would not use that object for that purpose. (See Halachah 20.) Eating that involves difficulty is still considered to be eating. Straws from the ears of grain,17This refers to softer straw that need not be chewed as forcefully as the straw from grain mentioned at the beginning of the halachah ( Tiferet Yisrael, Shabbat 7:4). Hence, it is suitable for smaller animals with smaller and less-powerful mouths. a lamb's mouthful.18A lamb's mouthful is equal to the size of a dried fig. Nevertheless, our Sages speak in terms of a lamb so that we will understand the motivating principle for this measure (Tosafot, Shabbat 76a). Grass, a kid's mouthful.19This is the smallest measure in this halachah.Leaves of garlic and leaves of onion20I.e., the leaves that sprout above ground (Tosefot Yom Tov, Shabbat 7:4). when fresh are considered to be human food. Hence, their measure is the size of a dried fig. When they are dry, their measure is a kid's mouthful.[Should one take out a combination of these substances,] their amounts should not be combined to hold one liable according to the more stringent measure. They should, however, be combined to hold one liable according to the more lenient measure. What is implied? When a person takes out both straw from grain and straw from beans, if the amount he takes out is enough to fill a cow's mouth, he is not liable.21Since the cow will not normally eat the bean straw, the amount of straw the person has taken out is not beneficial. Hence, he is not l iable. If it is enough to fill a camel's mouth, he is liable.22For the camel will eat the grain straw. Thus, the person has taken out an amount of fodder that will be beneficial. The same applies regarding all similar dimensions of the Sabbath laws.

ד׳הַמּוֹצִיא עֵצִים כְּדֵי לְבַשֵּׁל כִּגְרוֹגֶרֶת מִבֵּיצַת הַתַּרְנְגוֹלִים טְרוּפָה בְּשֶׁמֶן וּנְתוּנָה בְּאִלְפָּס. הַמּוֹצִיא קָנֶה כְּדֵי לַעֲשׂוֹת קֻלְמוֹס הַמַּגִּיעַ לְרָאשֵׁי אֶצְבְּעוֹתָיו. וְאִם הָיָה עָבֶה אוֹ מְרֻצָּץ שִׁעוּרוֹ כְּעֵצִים:

⁴[The minimum measure for which one is liable for transferring] wood is the amount necessary to cook a portion of a chicken's egg23This is the food that requires the least heat to cook (Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah, Shabbat 8:5). the size of a dried fig, when the egg is beaten and mixed with oil24The egg will then cook faster. Our translation is based on the Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah (loc. cit.). and placed in a pot.25In the Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah (loc. cit.), he mentions that the pot is already preheated, so that the wood must produce sufficient heat to cook the egg alone, and not to warm the pot as well.A person who transfers a reed is liable when it is large enough to make a pen26In the Talmudic era, it was common for the point of a reed to be sharpened to serve as a pen in a manner similar to a quill. that reaches to the top of his fingers. If, however, the reed is thick or crushed, [and thus is unfit for use as a pen,] the measure [for which one is liable] is the same as for wood.27I.e., the amount to cook a portion of an egg, as mentioned in the beginning of the halachah.

ה׳הַמּוֹצִיא תַּבְלִין כְּדֵי לְתַבֵּל בֵּיצָה וּמִצְטָרְפִין זֶה עִם זֶה. פִּלְפֵּל כָּל שֶׁהוּא. עִטְרָן כָּל שֶׁהוּא. רֵיחַ טוֹב כָּל שֶׁהוּא. רֵיחַ רַע כָּל שֶׁהוּא. מִינֵי בְּשָׂמִים כָּל שֶׁהֵן. אַרְגָּמָן טוֹב כָּל שֶׁהוּא. בְּתוּלַת הַוֶּרֶד אַחַת. מִינֵי מַתָּכוֹת הַקָּשִׁים כְּגוֹן נְחשֶׁת וּבַרְזֶל כָּל שֶׁהֵן. מֵעֲפַר הַמִּזְבֵּחַ וּמֵאַבְנֵי הַמִּזְבֵּחַ וּמִמֶּקֶק סְפָרִים וּמִמֶּקֶק מִטְפָּחוֹת שֶׁלָּהֶן כָּל שֶׁהֵן. מִפְּנֵי שֶׁמַּצְנִיעִין אוֹתָם לִגְנִיזָה. גַּחֶלֶת כָּל שֶׁהוּא. וְהַמּוֹצִיא שַׁלְהֶבֶת פָּטוּר:

⁵[The minimum measure for which one is liable for transferring] spices is the amount necessary to spice an egg. [Different] spices can be combined [to make up this measure].28The rationale is that all spices serve a similar purpose (Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah, Shabbat 9:5).Pepper,29Rashi (Shabbat 90a) explains that this does not refer to the species of pepper used as a spice (for if so, there is no reason to differentiate between it and other spices), but rather to a different species, which is used as a breath freshener. even the slightest amount. Pine sap,30See the notes on Chapter 5, Halachah 10, regarding our translation of the name of this substance. even the slightest amount.31Rashi (Shabbat 90a) states that this was used as a remedy for headaches. Even the slightest amount was beneficial. A substance with a pleasant fragrance, even the slightest amount.32For people will appreciate its fragrance. A substance with an unpleasant fragrance, even the slightest amount.33For people will appreciate the removal of an unpleasant odor. Rashi (Shabbat 90a) offers a different interpretation. Perfumes, even the slightest amount. Fine purpled dye,34This also has a pleasant fragrance (Rashi). even the slightest amount. Rosebuds, one.Pieces from utensils made from hard metal35Our translation follows the Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah (Shabbat 9:6), which notes that these metals are mentioned in connection with spices and explains that this refers to parts of a utensil used for crushing spices. Even a small portion of metal is beneficial, because it can be fashioned into a needle or pin. - e.g., bronze or iron - even the slightest amount. [Chips] from the stones of the altar, or from the earth of the altar,36See Hilchot Beit HaBechirah 1:15. [pieces] of decayed scrolls or their wrapping cloths,37See Hilchot Sefer Torah 10:3-4. even the slightest amount, for [these articles] are [required to be] entombed.38As mentioned in the sources cited in the previous two notes, we are obligated to show respect for even the slightest piece of any of these articles and entomb them, rather than allow them to be discarded as trash. Accordingly, even the smallest amount is considered significant. Hence, one is liable for transferring it on the Sabbath.A coal, even the slightest amount.39For it may be used for cooking, or kindling a fire. A person who transfers a flame is not liable.40Beitzah 39a explains that a flame has no substance. Hence, one is not liable. This applies, however, only when the person carries only a flame and not the coal, or the piece of wood that is burning.

ו׳הַמּוֹצִיא זֵרְעוֹנֵי גִּנָּה שֶׁאֵינָן נֶאֱכָלִין לְאָדָם שִׁעוּרָן פָּחוֹת מִכִּגְרוֹגֶרֶת. מִזֶּרַע קִשּׁוּאִין שְׁנַיִם. וּמִזֶּרַע הַדְּלוּעִין שְׁנַיִם. מִזֶּרַע פּוֹל הַמִּצְרִי שְׁנַיִם. הַמּוֹצִיא סֻבִּין כְּדֵי לִתֵּן עַל פִּי כּוּר שֶׁל צוֹרְפֵי זָהָב. הַמּוֹצִיא מֻרְסָן אִם לַאֲכִילָה שִׁעוּרוֹ כִּגְרוֹגֶרֶת. לִבְהֵמָה שִׁעוּרוֹ כִּמְלֹא פִּי גְּדִי. לִצְבִיעָה כְּדֵי לִצְבֹּעַ בֶּגֶד קָטָן. לוּלְבֵי זְרָדִין וְהַחֲרוּבִין עַד שֶׁלֹּא יַמְתִּיקוּ כִּגְרוֹגֶרֶת. וּמִשֶּׁיַּמְתִּיקוּ כִּמְלֹא פִּי גְּדִי. אֲבָל הַלּוּף וְהַחַרְדָּל וְהַתֻּרְמוֹסִין וּשְׁאָר כָּל הַנִּכְבָּשִׁין בֵּין שֶׁיַּמְתִּיקוּ בֵּין עַד שֶׁלֹּא יַמְתִּיקוּ כִּגְרוֹגֶרֶת:

⁶A person who transfers seeds of garden plants41In his Commentary on the Mishnah (Shabbat 9:7), the Rambam interprets this as referring to carrot seeds, turnip seeds, or onion seeds. (We have used Rav Kapach's translation which differs slightly from the standard text.) that are not fit for human consumption42Were the seeds fit for human consumption, the minimum measure for which one would be liable would be the size of a dried fig. We assume that the primary reason for which a person would transfer seeds is to serve as food. Since these seeds, by contrast, are not fit for human consumption, they are given a smaller measure.Rashi (Shabbat 90a) differs and explains that this law applies even to seeds that are fit for human consumption. Although these seeds are also fit to be eaten, a person usually takes them out with the intent of sowing them. is liable for [transferring] a measure that is almost the size of a dried fig.43Our translation is based on the Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah (loc. cit.), where he interprets the Mishnaic phrase, פחות מכגרוגרת in this fashion. Note the Mayim Chayim, which interprets this as referring to a k'zayit. [A person is liable for transferring] two cucumber seeds, two gourd seeds, and five Egyptian bean seeds.44Since these seeds were more valuable than those of most garden vegetables, they were assigned a smaller measure.[A person who] transfers coarse bran [is liable for transferring a quantity] fit to place on the opening of the crucible of a gold refiner.45In his Commentary on the Mishnah (Shabbat 8:4), the Rambam explains that bran is placed on the opening of the crucible during the smelting process. Rav Kapach explains (based on his experience as a jeweler) that the bran is intended to burn, and in that process to clear away impurities that cloud the smelter's vision. [The measure for which a person is liable for transferring] fine bran [depends on his intent]: If [he intends to use the bran as] food [for humans], the measure is the size of a dried fig. As food for animals, a kid's mouthful. For paint, enough to paint a small cloth.The buds of shrubs46Which grow in vineyards. Our translation is based on the Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah (Shvi'it 7:5). and carobs that have not yet become sweet, the size of a dried fig. After they become sweet, a mouthful of a kid. In contrast, luf,47In his Commentary on the Mishnah (Pe'ah 6:10), the Rambam defines luf as a sub-species of onion. mustard, turmos,48A species of beans.and all other foods that are pickled, whether they have become sweet or not, [the measure for which one is liable is] the size of a dried fig.49The commentaries note that although the Rambam's statements are based on the Tosefta, Shabbat 9:8, they are problematic, for there is another Tosefta (Ma'aser Sheni 1:13) that appears to be a direct contradiction. The difficulty is intensified by the fact that the Rambam also quotes the latter Tosefta in Hilchot Ma'aser Sheni 7:8. It is possible, however, to explain the contradiction based on the possibility that in our halachah, the word ימתיקו, translated as "become sweet," is a euphemism and means "become bitter." See also Hilchot Tum'at Ochalin 1:14 and Hilchot Sh'vitat Asor 2:6, where the Rambam mentions similar subjects, and the Responsa of the Radbaz (Vol. V, Responsum 1425) and the Merkevet HaMishneh, who offer possible resolutions.

ז׳הַמּוֹצִיא גַּרְעִינִין. אִם לַאֲכִילָה חָמֵשׁ. וְאִם לְהַסָּקָה הֲרֵי הֵן כְּעֵצִים. וְאִם לְחֶשְׁבּוֹן שְׁתַּיִם. וְאִם לִזְרִיעָה שְׁתַּיִם. הַמּוֹצִיא אֵזוֹב לְאֳכָלִים כִּגְרוֹגֶרֶת. לִבְהֵמָה כִּמְלֹא פִּי גְּדִי. לְעֵצִים כְּשִׁעוּר הָעֵצִים. לַהֲזָיָה כְּשִׁעוּר הֲזָיָה:

⁷[When a person] transfers seeds50Shabbat 90b quotes a similar, but slightly different passage from the Tosefta. We can assume that the Rambam's text of that passage differed from the one in our text of the Talmud. to eat, [he is liable for transferring] five. [If his intent] is to use them as fuel, they are considered to be wood.51The amount necessary to cook an egg, as mentioned in Halachah 4. For counting,52The seeds were used as a primitive calculator. Rashi (Shabbat 90b) explains that when transactions were made, a seed was used as a symbol for a gold coin. two, for sowing, two.[Similarly, the measure for which a person is liable for transferring] hyssop [depends on his intent]. If [his intent] is for human consumption, he is liable for [an amount equal to] the size of a dried fig. For animal consumption, a kid's mouthful. For fuel, the measure of wood; for sprinkling,53I.e., to use in the purification process of a metzora or a person who came into contact with a human corpse. (See Leviticus 14:6 and Numbers 19:18.) the measure acceptable for sprinkling.

ח׳הַמּוֹצִיא קְלִפֵּי אֱגוֹזִין וּקְלִפֵּי רִמּוֹנִים אִסְטִיס וּפוּאָה וּשְׁאָר הַצְּבָעִין כְּדֵי לִצְבֹּעַ בָּהֶן בֶּגֶד קָטָן כִּסְבָכָה שֶׁמַּנִּיחִין הַבָּנוֹת עַל רָאשֵׁיהֶן. וְכֵן הַמּוֹצִיא מֵי רַגְלַיִם בֶּן אַרְבָּעִים יוֹם אוֹ נֶתֶר אֲלֶכְּסַנְדְּרִיָּא אוֹ בֹּרִית קִימוֹנְיָא וְאַשְׁלָג וּשְׁאָר כָּל הַמְנַקִּין כְּדֵי לְכַבֵּס בָּהֶן בֶּגֶד קָטָן כִּסְבָכָה. הוֹצִיא סַמָּנִין שְׁרוּיִין כְּדֵי לִצְבֹּעַ בָּהֶן דֻּגְמָא לְאִירָא:

⁸[A person who] transfers nut shells, pomegranate shells, isatis,54Isatis is a substance which produces an indigo dye. Similarly, nut shells and pomegranate shells are used to produce dyes. pu'ah,55A root that produces a red dye. and other dyes [is liable for transferring a quantity] that is sufficient to dye a small garment - e.g.,56This represents a difference between the Rambam's interpretation of Shabbat 9:5 and that of other commentaries, including Rashi and Rav Ovadiah of Bertinoro. Instead of stating בגד קטן כסבכה, as in the Rambam's version of the Mishnah, the text quoted by the latter authorities states בגד קטן בסבכה, "a small cloth in the hairnet," referring not to the entire hairnet, but to one cloth within it. the hairnet young girls place on their heads.Similarly, one who transfers urine that is forty days old,57Note Hilchot Issurei Bi'ah 9:37, which states that aged urine is one of the cleansing agents used to determine whether a stain is blood or not. Alexandrian niter, soap, cimonia, ashlag,58These are also cleansing agents and are mentioned in Hilchot Issurei Bi'ah (loc. cit.). and all other cleansing agents [is liable for transferring] the amount necessary to wash a small garment - e.g., the hairnet young girls place on their heads.A person who transfers herbs that are soaking [is liable for transferring] an amount sufficient to dye a sample for a weaver.

ט׳הַמּוֹצִיא דְּיוֹ עַל הַקֻּלְמוֹס שִׁעוּרוֹ כְּדֵי לִכְתֹּב מִמֶּנּוּ שְׁתֵּי אוֹתִיּוֹת. אֲבָל אִם הוֹצִיא הַדְּיוֹ בִּפְנֵי עַצְמוֹ אוֹ בְּקֶסֶת צָרִיךְ שֶׁיִּהְיֶה בּוֹ יֶתֶר עַל זֶה כְּדֵי שֶׁיַּעֲלֶה מִמֶּנּוּ עַל הַקֻּלְמוֹס כְּדֵי לִכְתֹּב שְׁתֵּי אוֹתִיּוֹת. הָיָה בַּקֶּסֶת כְּדֵי אוֹת אַחַת וּבַקֻּלְמוֹס כְּדֵי אוֹת אַחַת אוֹ בַּדְּיוֹ לְבַדּוֹ כְּדֵי אוֹת אַחַת וּבַקֻּלְמוֹס כְּדֵי אוֹת אַחַת הֲרֵי זֶה סָפֵק. הוֹצִיא שְׁתֵּי אוֹתִיּוֹת וּכְתָבָן כְּשֶׁהוּא מְהַלֵּךְ חַיָּב. כְּתִיבָתָן זוֹ הִיא הַנָּחָתָן. הוֹצִיא אוֹת אַחַת וּכְתָבָהּ וְחָזַר וְהוֹצִיא אוֹת שְׁנִיָּה וּכְתָבָהּ פָּטוּר. שֶׁכְּבָר חָסְרָה הָאוֹת הָרִאשׁוֹנָה:

⁹A person who transfers ink on a quill [is liable for transferring] a measure sufficient to write two letters.59The Mishnah (Shabbat 8:3) states that one is liable for transferring an amount of ink sufficient to write two letters. The Jerusalem Talmud (loc. cit.) states that one is not liable unless one transfers this amount of ink while it is on the pen. Otherwise, there is a doubt (as reflected in the following clause), for it is difficult for all the ink that is in an inkwell to be picked up by a pen. If, however, a person removes [the dried concentrate used to make] ink or ink in an inkwell, a larger amount is necessary [for him to be liable], i.e., the amount necessary for a person to dip a pen in and write two letters.If [a person transfers] enough [ink] to write one letter in an inkwell and enough [ink] to write one letter on a quill or enough dry ink to write one letter and enough ink to write one letter on a quill, there is a doubt whether he is liable or not.60The person is not liable for transferring the quill or the inkwell, for they are considered secondary to the ink. As the Rambam states in Halachah 28, when a person transfers a measure for which he is not liable in a utensil, he is not liable for transferring the utensil, since it is considered secondary to its contents.[When a person takes out enough ink to write] two letters and writes them as he is walking, he is liable. Writing them is considered to be placing them down.61The hanachah without which one is not liable for transferring. [When a person takes out enough ink to write] one letter and writes and then takes out [enough ink to write] a second letter and writes it, he is not liable.62He is not liable for transferring. He is, however, liable for writing. For [the ink for] the first letter is lacking.63At no one time did he transfer the minimum measure for which he would be held liable, for by the time he transfers the second portion of ink, part of the first portion will have dried. Therefore, he remains exempt (Rashi, Shabbat 80a).

י׳הַמּוֹצִיא כְּחל בֵּין לִרְפוּאָה בֵּין לְתַכְשִׁיט כְּדֵי לִכְחל עַיִן אַחַת. וּבְמָקוֹם שֶׁאֵין דַּרְכָּן לְהִתְקַשֵּׁט אֶלָּא בִּכְחִילַת שְׁתֵּי עֵינַיִם וְהוֹצִיאוֹ לְהִתְקַשֵּׁט עַד שֶׁיּוֹצִיא כְּדֵי לִכְחל שְׁתֵּי עֵינַיִם. זֶפֶת וְגָפְרִית כְּדֵי לַעֲשׂוֹת נֶקֶב. שַׁעֲוָה כְּדֵי לִתֵּן עַל פִּי נֶקֶב קָטָן. דֶּבֶק כְּדֵי לִתֵּן בְּרֹאשׁ הַשַּׁפְשָׁף. רְבָב כְּדֵי לִמְשֹׁחַ תַּחַת רָקִיק כְּסֶלַע:

¹⁰[A person who transfers] eye paint, whether for medicinal64כחול, rendered by some translators as "stibium," was reputed to have medicinal properties in addition to its cosmetic qualities. Even if only one of a person's eyes was affected, it would be common for him to apply כחול to that eye alone. Hence, one is liable for transferring the amount necessary to paint one eye. or cosmetic purposes, [is liable for transferring an amount sufficient] to paint one eye.65Rashi, Shabbat 80a, relates that modest women would veil their faces entirely, exposing only one eye to enable them to see. They would, however, paint this eye. In places where [a woman] would not apply eye paint to less than two eyes as a cosmetic practice,66Rashi (loc. cit.) interprets this as referring to small villages, where frivolity was not commonplace. Therefore, women would walk outside with their faces uncovered. Hence, if a woman painted her eyes for cosmetic purposes, she would paint both eyes. Note the Ra'avad, who offers a different interpretation of that Talmudic passage. a person who takes out eye paint for cosmetic purposes is not liable unless he takes out a quantity sufficient to paint two eyes.Tar or sulfur, enough to make a hole.67Rashi (Shabbat 78a) interprets this as referring to a phial of mercury that is sealed closed with these substances. Afterwards, a hole is made in the sulfur or tar with a pin through which the mercury can be poured, but through which it will not spill excessively if the b ottle falls on its side. The Meiri interprets the Talmud as referring to making a seal for a jug of wine. Wax, enough to place on a small hole.68The Maggid Mishneh interprets this as referring to stopping a hole in a wine barrel. Paste, enough to place on a board to catch birds.69In his Commentary on the Mishnah (Shabbat 8:4), the Rambam interprets this as referring to a board with paste taken into a dovecote on which the fledglings perch and are thus captured. Rashi (Shabbat 80a) interprets this as a board with paste used to catch wild fowl. Fat, enough to grease [a space] the size of a sela70A coin of the Talmudic period with a width of a handbreadth, approximately 8 cm. according to Shiurei Torah. under a cake [in an oven].

י״אהַמּוֹצִיא אֲדָמָה כְּדֵי לַעֲשׂוֹת חוֹתַם הָאִגֶּרֶת. טִיט כְּדֵי לַעֲשׂוֹת פִּי כּוּר. זֶבֶל אוֹ חוֹל דַּק כְּדֵי לְזַבֵּל כְּרִישָׁה. חוֹל גַּס כְּדֵי לְעָרֵב עִם מְלֹא כַּף שֶׁל סַיָּדִין. חַרְסִית כְּדֵי לַעֲשׂוֹת פִּי כּוּר שֶׁל צוֹרְפֵי זָהָב. שֵׂעַר כְּדֵי לְגַבֵּל טִיט לַעֲשׂוֹת פִּי כּוּר שֶׁל צוֹרְפֵי זָהָב. סִיד כְּדֵי לָסוּד אֶצְבַּע קְטַנָּה שֶׁבַּבָּנוֹת. עָפָר וָאֵפֶר כְּדֵי לְכַסּוֹת דַּם צִפּוֹר קְטַנָּה. צְרוֹר אֶבֶן כְּדֵי לִזְרֹק בִּבְהֵמָה וְתַרְגִּישׁ. וְהוּא מִשְׁקַל עֲשָׂרָה זוּזִים. חֶרֶס כְּדֵי לְקַבֵּל בּוֹ רְבִיעִית:

¹¹[A person who transfers] red clay71Our translation is based on the Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah (Shabbat 8:5), where he emphasizes that the Hebrew אדמה means both "earth" and "red." [is liable for transferring an amount] sufficient to make a seal for a letter.72In the Talmudic period, letters were sealed with clay. This refers to a seal like that of a notary placed on a letter to testify to its authenticity.Clay, enough to make the opening of a crucible.73Rav Kapach notes that in this instance the Rambam does not state "a goldsmith's crucible," for crucibles used for smelting other metals need not be as heat-resistant as those used for gold.Manure or fine sand, enough to fertilize a leek. Coarse sand, enough to mix with a full trowel of lime.74Shabbat 80b relates that plaster is mixed with sand in order to strengthen the structure. Firm clay,75Our translation is based on the Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah (Shabbat 8:4). Rashi (Shabbat 78b) interprets חרסית as "crushed brick." enough to make the opening of a goldsmith's crucible. Hair, enough to mix with clay to make the opening of a goldsmith's crucible.76Shabbat 80b states that hair was mixed with clay when a crucible was fashioned for smelting gold. Lime, enough to apply to a girl's smallest finger.77Shabbat 80b states that lime would be applied to the bodies of young girls, one limb at a time. Rashi states it would make their skin red. Tosafot maintains that it would whiten their skin. Dust or ash, enough to cover the blood of a small bird.78As Leviticus 17:13 states that after a bird or a wild animal is slaughtered, its blood must be covered with earth or ashes. (See Hilchot Shechitah, Chapter 14.) A pebble, enough for an animal to feel if it was thrown at it79For in this way, the pebble will be beneficial in shooing the animal (Shabbat 81a). - i.e., the weight of ten zuzim. A shard, enough to contain a revi'it.

י״בהַמּוֹצִיא חֶבֶל כְּדֵי לַעֲשׂוֹת אֹזֶן לְקֻפָּה. גֶּמִי כְּדֵי לַעֲשׂוֹת תְּלַאי לְנָפָה וְלִכְבָרָה. הוּצִין כְּדֵי לַעֲשׂוֹת אֹזֶן לִכְפִיפָה מִצְרִית. סִיב כְּדֵי לִתֵּן עַל פִּי מַשְׁפֵּךְ קָטָן שֶׁל יַיִן. מוֹכִין כְּדֵי לַעֲשׂוֹת בּוֹ כַּדּוּר כֶּאֱגוֹז. עֶצֶם כְּדֵי לַעֲשׂוֹת תַּרְוָד. זְכוּכִית כְּדֵי לִגְרֹד בָּהּ רֹאשׁ הַכַּרְכָּר אוֹ עַד שֶׁיִּפְצַע שְׁתֵּי נִימִין כְּאַחַת:

¹²[A person who transfers] rope [is liable for transferring an amount] sufficient to make a handle for a container. Reeds,80In his Commentary on the Mishnah (Shabbat 8:2), the Rambam gives a more specific definition, mentioning an Arabic term that Rav Kapach identifies as cypress. enough to make a hook to hang a sifter or a sieve.81This is a smaller measure than the amount sufficient to make a handle. Nevertheless, rope would not be used for this purpose, because it is coarse and might damage the utensil (Shabbat 78b). Palm leaves, enough to make a handle for an Egyptian basket. Palm bast, enough to use as a stopper for a small pitcher of wine.82To use as a filter (ibid.). Unprocessed wool, enough to make a ball the size of a nut.Bone, enough to make a spoon. Glass, to sharpen the point of a weaver's needle or to cut two threads at once.83The Mishnah (Shabbat 8:6) mentions sharpening a needle. The Talmud (Shabbat 81a) mentions cutting threads. Apparently, the Rambam considers the two measures to be identical.

י״גהַמּוֹצִיא שְׁתֵּי נִימִין מִזְּנַב הַסּוּס וּמִזְּנַב הַפָּרָה חַיָּב. הוֹצִיא אַחַת מִן הַקָּשֶׁה שֶׁבַּחֲזִיר חַיָּב. נִצְרֵי דֶּקֶל וְהֵן חוּטֵי הָעֵץ שְׁתַּיִם. חוֹרֵי דֶּקֶל וְהֵן קְלִפֵּי הַחֲרָיוֹת אַחַת. מִצֶּמֶר גֶּפֶן וּמִצֶּמֶר כָּלָךְ וְצֶמֶר גְּמַלִּים וְאַרְנָבִים וְחַיָּה שֶׁבַּיָּם וּשְׁאָר כָּל הַנִּטְוִין כְּדֵי לִטְווֹת חוּט אֹרֶךְ אַרְבָּעָה טְפָחִים. הַמּוֹצִיא מִן הַבֶּגֶד אוֹ מִן הַשַּׂק אוֹ מִן הָעוֹר כְּשִׁעוּרָן לְטֻמְאָה כָּךְ שִׁעוּרָן לְהוֹצָאָה. הַבֶּגֶד שְׁלֹשָׁה עַל שְׁלֹשָׁה. הַשַּׂק אַרְבָּעָה עַל אַרְבָּעָה. הָעוֹר חֲמִשָּׁה עַל חֲמִשָּׁה:

¹³[A person] is liable for transferring two hairs from the tail of a horse or of a cow.84Rashi, Shabbat 90b, states that these hairs were used by bird hunters. If he transfers one bristle from a pig's [back],85Rashi (ibid.) states these hairs are used in sewing leather. he is liable. Fibers from a date palm, two. The bark of the date branches, one.86From the Rambam's statements, it appears that his interpretation - a nd perhaps even the wording in his text - of Shabbat 90b was different from Rashi's interpretation of our version of that passage. (See the commentaries of the Meiri and Rabbenu Chanan'el on that passage.)From cotton, from silk, camel's wool, rabbit's wool, wool from an animal of the sea, or any other fibers that can be spun, enough to spin a thread four handbreadths long.87The Rambam's source appears to be the Tosefta, Shabbat 9:3 which states m'lo hasit kaful which, as mentioned in Chapter 9, Halachah 10, is equivalent to four handbreadths.When a person transfers cloth, sack, or leather, the same minimum measurements that apply with regard to the laws of ritual purity also apply with regard to transferring [on the Sabbath]: [The size of] a cloth for which one is liable for transferring] is three [fingerbreadths] by three [fingerbreadths];88See Hilchot Keilim 22:1.) sackcloth,89Fabric made from camel's hair and other fibers that are rough and are therefore generally not used to make garments for humans. four [handbreadths] by four [handbreadths]; leather, five [handbreadths] by five [handbreadths].90See Hilchot Keilim 23:3.

י״דהַמּוֹצִיא עוֹר שֶׁלֹּא נִתְעַבֵּד כְּלָל אֶלָּא עֲדַיִן הוּא רַךְ שִׁעוּרוֹ כְּדֵי לָצוּר מִשְׁקלֶת קְטַנָּה שֶׁמִּשְׁקָלָהּ שֶׁקֶל. הָיָה מָלוּחַ וַעֲדַיִן לֹא נַעֲשָׂה בְּקֶמַח וְלֹא בְּעַפְּצָה שִׁעוּרוֹ כְּדֵי לַעֲשׂוֹת קָמֵעַ. הָיָה עָשׂוּי בְּקֶמַח וַעֲדַיִן לֹא נִתְעַבֵּד בְּעַפְּצָה שִׁעוּרוֹ כְּדֵי לִכְתֹּב עָלָיו אֶת הַגֵּט. נִגְמַר עִבּוּדוֹ שִׁעוּרוֹ חֲמִשָּׁה עַל חֲמִשָּׁה:

¹⁴When a person transfers an animal hide that was not processed at all and is thus soft, the measure [for which he is liable] is enough to wrap a small weight the size of a shekel. When [it is in the first stages of being processed - i.e.,] salt has been applied to it, but not flour and gall-nut juice, the measure [for which one is liable] is enough to make an amulet.91In his Commentary on the Mishnah (Shabbat 8:3), the Rambam interprets this as referring to the wrapping in which the amulet was held, and not to the amulet itself. If flour has been applied to it, but not gall-nut juice, the measure is enough to write a bill of divorce upon it. If it has been processed entirely, its measure is five [handbreadths] by five [handbreadths].

ט״והַמּוֹצִיא קְלָף מְעֻבָּד כְּדֵי לִכְתֹּב עָלָיו פָּרָשַׁת שְׁמַע עַד וּבִשְׁעָרֶיךָ. דּוּכְסוּסְטוּס כְּדֵי לִכְתֹּב עָלָיו מְזוּזָה. נְיָר כְּדֵי לִכְתֹּב עָלָיו שְׁתֵּי אוֹתִיּוֹת שֶׁל קֶשֶׁר מוֹכְסִין שֶׁהֵן גְּדוֹלוֹת מֵאוֹתִיּוֹת שֶׁלָּנוּ. הַמּוֹצִיא קֶשֶׁר מוֹכְסִין חַיָּב אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁכְּבָר הֶרְאָהוּ לַמּוֹכֵס וְנִפְטַר בּוֹ שֶׁהֲרֵי רְאָיָה הִיא לְעוֹלָם. הַמּוֹצִיא שְׁטָר פָּרוּעַ וּנְיָר מָחוּק כְּדֵי לִכְרֹךְ עַל פִּי צְלוֹחִית קְטַנָּה שֶׁל פְּלַיָּיטוֹן. וְאִם יֵשׁ בַּלֹּבֶן שֶׁלּוֹ כְּדֵי לִכְתֹּב שְׁתֵּי אוֹתִיּוֹת שֶׁל קֶשֶׁר מוֹכְסִין חַיָּב:

¹⁵[A person who transfers] processed parchment92Although at present, the word k'laf is commonly translated as "parchment," the Rambam is referring to a more specific meaning. In Hilchot Tefillin 1:6-8, he differentiates between three types of parchment, stating:There are three types of parchment: g'vil, k'laf, and duchsustos.What is implied? The hide of a domesticated or wild animal is taken. F irst, the hair is removed from it. Afterwards, it is salted and then prepared with flour. Then resin and other substances that cause the skin to contract and become harder are applied to it. In this state, it is called g'vil.After the hair is removed, the hide may be taken and divided in half in the manner known to the parchment processors. Thus, there are two pieces of parchment: a thin one, which is on the side where the hair grew, and a thicker one, on the side of the flesh.After it has been processed using salt, then flour, and then resin and the like, the portion on the side where the hair grew is called k'laf and the portion on the side of the flesh is called duchsustos.It is a halachah transmitted to Moses on Mount Sinai that a Torah scroll should be written on g'vil on the side on which the hair had grown. When tefillin are written on k'laf, they should be written on the side of the flesh. When a mezuzah is written on duchsustos, it should be written on the side of the hair. [is liable for transferring a piece] sufficient for the passage from Shema to uvish'arecha.93This is the shortest passage of the four passages included in the tefillin. In the head-tefillin, each of these passages is written on a separate piece of parchment. Duchsustos, enough to write a mezuzah on it.Paper, enough to write on it two letters for a customs officer's receipt. These two letters are larger than the letters we [usually write]. A person who transfers a customs officer's receipt is liable even though he has already shown it to the customs officer and has been exempted because of it,94This appears to be the Rambam's interpretation of the statement of the Mishnah (Shabbat 8:2), "One who transfers a customs officer's receipt is liable." Since the Mishnah already stated that a person who transfers a piece of paper large enough to write such a receipt is liable, it goes without saying that a person who transfers an unused receipt is liable. When explicitly telling us that a person is liable for transferring such a receipt, the Mishnah is obviously referring to a receipt that has already been used. See Shabbat 78b. for it will serve forever as proof [of his having paid].A person who transfers a promissory note that has been paid95Note Shabbat 78b, 79a which discusses the propriety of maintaining possession of such a promissory note. or a paper that has been erased [is liable for transferring] enough to wrap around a small flask of perfume.96Since the paper has already been erased, it is no longer fit for writing. Therefore, it is considered to be suitable for other purposes and requires a larger measurement. If it has a portion of clean paper large enough to write two letters for a custom officer's receipt, he is liable.

ט״זהַמּוֹצִיא בְּהֵמָה חַיָּה וְעוֹף אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהֵן חַיִּים חַיָּב. אֲבָל אָדָם חַי אֵינוֹ מַשּׂאוֹי. וְאִם הָיָה כָּפוּת אוֹ חוֹלֶה הַמּוֹצִיא אוֹתוֹ חַיָּב. וְהָאִשָּׁה מְדַדָּה אֶת בְּנָהּ בִּזְמַן שֶׁנּוֹטֵל אַחַת וּמַנִּיחַ אַחַת:

¹⁶A person who transfers an animal, a wild beast, or a fowl is liable even if it is alive. A living person, by contrast, is not considered to be a burden.97Shabbat 94a quotes Rabbi Natan as stating, "A living creature carries itself." Although the Sages differ with him, their objections concern animals only, for the latter resist being carried and struggle to free themselves. In contrast, a human being assists in being carried. This is obvious from the fact that it is far easier to carry a living person than the same amount of "dead weight."It must be emphasized that although there is no prohibition from the Torah against carrying a living person, our Sages forbade this. (See Mishnah Berurah 308:153,154.) Nevertheless, if he is bound or sick, a person who transfers him is liable.98For in this instance, the person being carried is unable to assist the one carrying him.A woman may walk her son if he can pick up one foot and place down the other.99I.e., the child must propel himself forward. His mother may not, however, drag him (Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 308:41). Note the Mishnah Berurah 308:154, which states that the principle, "A living being carries itself," does not apply to a child unless he is old enough to take steps by himself.

י״זהַמּוֹצִיא תִּינוֹק חַי וְכִיס תָּלוּי בְּצַוָּארוֹ חַיָּב מִשּׁוּם הַכִּיס שֶׁאֵין הַכִּיס טְפֵלָה לַתִּינוֹק. אֲבָל אִם הוֹצִיא אֶת הַגָּדוֹל אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהוּא מְלֻבָּשׁ בְּכֵלָיו וְטַבְּעוֹתָיו בְּיָדוֹ פָּטוּר שֶׁהַכּל טְפֵלָה לוֹ. הָיוּ כֵּלָיו מְקֻפָּלִין עַל כְּתֵפוֹ הַנּוֹשֵׂא אוֹתוֹ חַיָּב:

¹⁷A person who transfers a living child with a purse hanging around his neck is liable, because of the purse, for the purse is not considered to be subsidiary to the child.100As reflected in Halachah 28, when a person transfers two articles, one of primary importance and one of secondary importance, whether or not he is liable depends on the article of primary importance. If he would be liable for transferring this article by itself, he is liable. If not, he is not liable. The article of secondary importance is of no significance whatsoever.When does this apply? When the article of secondary importance is subsidiary to the article of primary importance. If they are, as in the example cited in this halachah, two unrelated objects, the person is liable for transferring the article of secondary importance. If, however, one transfers an adult who is wearing clothes and rings on his hands, one is not liable, for everything is considered to be subsidiary to him. If, by contrast, his garments were folded [and held] on his shoulder,101They are considered to be separate objects, unrelated to the person who is holding them. a person who carries him is liable.

י״חהַמּוֹצִיא חָגָב חַי כָּל שֶׁהוּא. וּמֵת כִּגְרוֹגֶרֶת. צִפֹּרֶת כְּרָמִים בֵּין חַיָּה בֵּין מֵתָה כָּל שֶׁהוּא מִפְּנֵי שֶׁמַּצְנִיעִין אוֹתָהּ לִרְפוּאָה. וְכֵן כָּל כַּיּוֹצֵא בָּהּ. הַמֵּת וְהַנְּבֵלָה וְהַשֶּׁרֶץ כְּשִׁעוּר טֻמְאָתָן כָּךְ שִׁעוּר הוֹצָאָתָן. מֵת וּנְבֵלָה כְּזַיִת וְשֶׁרֶץ כַּעֲדָשָׁה:

¹⁸[A person who transfers] a live locust of the smallest size [is liable].102Shabbat 90b states that locusts are often used as playthings for children. Hence, regardless of the locust's size, one is liable.The Rambam's ruling is quoted from the Mishnah (Shabbat 9:7), which also mentions two opinions: One that maintains that this applies only to a kosher locust, and that of Rabbi Yehudah, which states that it applies to all locusts, whether kosher or nonkosher. In his Commentary on the Mishnah, the Rambam states that the halachah does not follow Rabbi Yehudah's opinion.From the fact that the Rambam does not mention whether the locust must be kosher or not in this halachah, the Merkevet HaMishneh concludes that he has reversed his opinion and accepts Rav Yehudah's view. Others differ and maintain that this is clarified by the second clause, which mentions "[an amount] the size of a dried fig" - i.e., the measure applying to food. Just as the second clause applies only to kosher locusts, so too, does the first clause. If it is dead, [he is liable for transferring an amount] the size of a dried fig.103As mentioned in the previous note, this is the minimum measurement for food. [For transferring] "a bird of the vineyards,"104In Hilchot Ma'achalot Assurot 1:21 the Rambam (as does Rabbenu Chanan'el and the Aruch) defines this as a species of kosher locusts. Others define it as a bird. [one is liable for transferring] even the smallest amount, regardless of whether it is alive or dead, since it is preserved for medicinal105Shabbat 10:1 states that one is liable for transferring even the slightest amount of any substance that is retained for its medicinal purposes. purposes.106According to Shabbat 90b, partaking of such a creature enhances one's intellectual capacities. The same applies in all similar cases.The minimum measure for which one is liable for transferring [flesh from] a human corpse, [flesh from] the carcass of an animal, or [flesh from] a dead crawling animal107Shabbat 93b-94a states that Rabbi Shimon exempts a person from liability in this instance, for in contrast to other situations, the person is not removing the impure object because he desires it itself, but because he desires the place to be free of impurity. Hence, this is a מלאכה שאינה צריכה לגופה, a labor that is not performed for the same purpose for which the labor was performed in the construction of the Sanctuary. In the construction of the Sanctuary, articles were transfered because they were, themselves, desired. In contrast, in this instance, the person's intent is to remove impurity. Nevertheless, as the Rambam rules in Chapter 1, Halachah 7, one is liable for performing a מלאכה שאינה צריכה לגופה. is the same as the minimum amount of these substances capable of imparting ritual impurity: From a human corpse108See Hilchot Tum'at Meit 2:1-2. and from an animal carcass,109See Hilchot Sha'ar Avot HaTum'ah 1:1. the size of an olive. From a crawling animal,110More specifically, this refers to the eight species mentioned in Leviticus 11:29- 30. (See Hilchot Sha'ar Avot HaTum'ah 4:2.) the size of a lentil.

י״טהָיָה שָׁם כְּזַיִת מְצֻמְצָם וְהוֹצִיא מִמֶּנּוּ כַּחֲצִי זַיִת חַיָּב שֶׁהֲרֵי הוֹעִיל בְּמַעֲשָׂיו שֶׁנִּתְמַעֵט הַשִּׁעוּר מִלְּטַמֵּא. אֲבָל אִם הוֹצִיא כַּחֲצִי זַיִת מִכְּזַיִת וּמֶחֱצָה פָּטוּר. וְכֵן כָּל כַּיּוֹצֵא בָּזֶה בִּשְׁאָר הַטֻּמְאוֹת:

¹⁹If there is exactly an olive-sized portion [of an animal carcass in one place] and a person removes a portion half the size of an olive111In this instance, the phrase "half the size of an olive" is not intended to serve as an exact measure. The intent is any measure that will reduce the size of the portion of the animal carcass to less than the size of an olive. The same principles apply to flesh from a human corpse. from it, he is liable. [This decision is rendered,] because his actions are effective in reducing [the amount of impure substance to the extent] that the minimum amount that can convey impurity is no longer present.If, however, he removes a quantity aproximately half the size of an olive from a quantity that is one and a half times the size of an olive, he is not liable.112For an amount large enough to convey ritual impurity still remains intact. The same principles apply with regard to other sources of impurity.

כ׳בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים שֶׁאֵינוֹ חַיָּב אֶלָּא עַל הַהוֹצָאָה כַּשִּׁעוּר, כְּשֶׁהוֹצִיא סְּתָם. אֲבָל הַמּוֹצִיא לְזֶרַע אוֹ לִרְפוּאָה אוֹ לְהַרְאוֹת מִמֶּנּוּ דֻּגְמָא וּלְכָל כַּיּוֹצֵא בָּזֶה חַיָּב בְּכָל שֶׁהוּא:

²⁰When does [the abovementioned rule,] that a person is liable only when he transfers the minimum of a standard measure of a substance, apply? When the person transfers the substance without any specific intent.113Since even the small amount of the substance the person transfers is valuable to him, he has a reason for transferring it. Accordingly, his act is considered to be "purposeful." See the notes to Halachah 1. If, however, a person transfers a [seed] to sow,114The commentaries note that Halachah 6 mentions taking seeds for sowing and mentions specific measures. Among the possible resolutions is that there is ordinarily a measure for seeds as well. This halachah, however, specifically focuses on the exceptions to the general rule, and there are indeed individuals who will sow a single seed in a flower pot (Rav Kapach, Kinat Eliyahu). or a substance for medicinal purposes, to show as an example, or the like,115Note the Mishneh LaMelech, who states that with this statement the Rambam does not intend to negate totally the measures he mentioned previously. For example, if a person transfers food, he is not liable unless it is the size of a dried fig. Even if a particular person desires to eat a smaller amount, that intent is not considered significant, since most people would not appreciate such an amount. In this halachah, the Rambam is stating that in certain instances, as in the examples he mentions, there is a particular intent which requires merely a tiny amount of a substance to be accomplished. In such an instance, the person is liable for transferring an object of this small size. he is liable for the slightest amount.

כ״אהַמַּצְנִיעַ דָּבָר לִזְרִיעָה אוֹ לִרְפוּאָה אוֹ לְדֻגְמָא וְשָׁכַח לָמָּה הִצְנִיעוֹ וְהוֹצִיאוֹ סְתָם חַיָּב עָלָיו בְּכָל שֶׁהוּא שֶׁעַל דַּעַת מַחֲשָׁבָה רִאשׁוֹנָה הוֹצִיא. וּשְׁאָר הָאָדָם אֵין חַיָּבִין עָלָיו אֶלָּא כְּשִׁעוּרוֹ. זָרַק זֶה שֶׁהוֹצִיא כְּבָר לְתוֹךְ הָאוֹצָר אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁמְּקוֹמוֹ נִכָּר כְּבָר בָּטְלָה מַחֲשַׁבְתּוֹ הָרִאשׁוֹנָה. לְפִיכָךְ אִם חָזַר וְהִכְנִיסוֹ אֵינוֹ חַיָּב עַד שֶׁיַּכְנִיס כַּשִּׁעוּר:

²¹Should a person who stores a substance to use as seed, or to use for medicinal purposes, or a substance to be shown as a sample, [afterwards,] forget the reason for which he stored the substance,116Before the commencement of the Sabbath (Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah, Shabbat 10:1). and remove it117On the Sabbath (ibid.). without any specific intent,118I.e., even if he forgot the intent for which he originally stored away the article. he is liable regardless of its size.119By setting the article aside for a specific purpose, the person shows that it is important to him, regardless of its size. Therefore, if he later transfers the article, he is liable (Shabbat 90b, 91a). Another person, by contrast, is not liable [if he transfers this article] unless it is of the prescribed measure.120I.e., the intent a particular individual has for an article is important regarding the measure for which he is liable for transferring that article. It does not affect the status of that article vis-a-vis others.If after transferring the article [for the intent he originally had], the person throws it into a storeroom, even if it is [set aside] in a distinct place,121As opposed to being mixed together with the other objects in the storeroom. This might be considered to be a sign that it is being saved for a specific purpose. his original intent is considered to have been nullified. Therefore, if he brings in the article afterwards, he is not liable unless it is of the prescribed measure.

כ״בדָּבָר שֶׁאֵין דֶּרֶךְ בְּנֵי אָדָם לְהַצְנִיעוֹ וְאֵינוֹ רָאוּי לְהַצְנִיעַ כְּגוֹן דַּם הַנִּדָּה אִם הִצְנִיעוֹ אֶחָד וְהוֹצִיאוֹ חַיָּב. וּשְׁאָר הָאָדָם פְּטוּרִין עָלָיו. שֶׁאֵין חַיָּבִין אֶלָּא עַל הוֹצָאַת דָּבָר הַכָּשֵׁר לְהַצְנִיעַ וּמַצְנִיעִין כָּמוֹהוּ:

²²When an entity is not usually stored away,122In his Commentary on the Mishnah (Shabbat 7:3), the Rambam interprets this phrase as excluding an article that is commonplace and easily obtainable. Therefore, it is not stored away. [Note Rav Ovadiah of Bertinoro and Rashi (Shabbat 75b), who interpret this as excluding an amount of a substance smaller than the prescribed measure.] nor is it fit to be stored away123In his Commentary on the Mishnah (ibid.), the Rambam explains that this excludes objects that will spoil if stored. - e.g., a woman's menstrual discharge - a person who stores it and then transfers it is liable.124By storing the article in question, the person indicates that he considers it important. Therefore, he is liable for transferring it. Other people, by contrast, are exempt for [transferring] such an article, for [in general] one is not liable unless one transfers an article that is fit to be stored and that people generally store.

כ״גהַמּוֹצִיא חֲצִי שִׁעוּר פָּטוּר. וְכֵן כָּל הָעוֹשֶׂה מְלָאכָה מִן הַמְּלָאכוֹת חֲצִי שִׁעוּר פָּטוּר. הוֹצִיא חֲצִי שִׁעוּר וְהִנִּיחוֹ וְחָזַר וְהוֹצִיא הַחֵצִי הָאַחֵר חַיָּב. וְאִם קָדַם וְהִגְבִּיהַּ הַחֵצִי הָרִאשׁוֹן קֹדֶם הַנָּחַת הַחֵצִי הַשֵּׁנִי נַעֲשָׂה כְּמִי שֶׁנִּשְׂרַף וּפָטוּר. הוֹצִיא חֲצִי שִׁעוּר וְהִנִּיחוֹ וְחָזַר וְהוֹצִיא חֵצִי אַחֵר וְהֶעֱבִירוֹ עַל הָרִאשׁוֹן בְּתוֹךְ שְׁלֹשָׁה חַיָּב. שֶׁהַמַּעֲבִיר כְּמִי שֶׁהִנִּיחַ עַל גַּבֵּי מַשֶּׁהוּ. אֲבָל אִם זְרָקוֹ אֵינוֹ חַיָּב עַד שֶׁיָּנוּחַ שָׁם עַל גַּבֵּי מַשֶּׁהוּ:

²³A person who transfers half125The intent is any amount less than the full measure. of the prescribed measure [of a substance] is not liable.126See the notes on the first halachah of this chapter which discuss whether the prohibition against this activity stems from the Torah itself or is Rabbinic in origin. As mentioned there, according to the principles the Rambam states in Chapter 1, Halachah 3, the use of the word פטור indicates that the prohibition was instituted by our Sages. Similarly, a person who performs half the measure of any of the other [forbidden] labors is not liable.If a person transfers half of the prescribed measure [of a substance], places it down, and then returns and transfers the second half, he is liable.127For he has transferred a full measure of the article in question. As the Maggid Mishneh mentions, it is clear from the following halachah that this refers to actions performed in a single period of unawareness. If, however, he picks up the first half before he places down the second half, it is as if [the first half] were burned,128Since a full measure of the entity in question was never transferred into the second domain and placed down there at a single time, the person is not liable. and he is not liable.When a person transfers half of the prescribed measure [of a substance], places it down, and then returns and transfers the second half, passing it over the first [half without placing it on the ground], he is liable [if the second half] is [held] within three handbreadths of the first half.129Based on the principle of l'vud, an article held within three handbreadths of a second article is considered as having been placed down on that article, as implied by Chapter 13, Halachah 6. Therefore, the two half-measures of the substance in question are considered to have been placed down in the same place. Hence, the person who placed them down is liable. See the commentary of Rabbenu Chananel to Shabbat 80a. [The rationale is] that transferring is considered equivalent to placing the object down on a substance.If, by contrast, he throws the second half,130Even if it passes within three handbreadths of the ground, as long as it does not come to rest even momentarily (see Chapter 13, Halachah 16, and notes). he is not liable unless it comes to rest on a substance [within the domain where the first half was placed].131As mentioned in the notes on the halachah cited above, it would appear that the object would have to come to rest on a substance four handbreadths by four handbreadths, or come to rest within three handbreadths of the ground.

כ״דהוֹצִיא חֲצִי שִׁעוּר וְחָזַר וְהוֹצִיא חֲצִי שִׁעוּר בְּהֵעָלֵם אַחַת לִרְשׁוּת אַחַת חַיָּב. לִשְׁתֵּי רְשׁוּיוֹת אִם יֵשׁ בֵּינֵיהֶן רְשׁוּת שֶׁחַיָּבִין עָלֶיהָ פָּטוּר. הָיְתָה בֵּינֵיהֶן כַּרְמְלִית הֲרֵי הֵן כִּרְשׁוּת אַחַת וְחַיָּב חַטָּאת:

²⁴[When a person] transfers half the prescribed measure [of a substance], and afterwards transfers another half of the prescribed measure [of that substance] to the same domain in a single period of unawareness, he is liable.132One is liable to bring a sin offering for performing a forbidden labor only if one performed the labor without intent to violate the Torah's commandments. Furthermore, if in the midst of one's performance of a forbidden activity, one becomes conscious of the prohibition involved, even if one loses awareness immediately afterwards and completes the measure of forbidden activity without the desire to violate the law, one is not liable. (See Hilchot Shegagot 6:8.)[Different rules apply if] he transfers [the two half-measures] to two different domains. If there is a domain into which one would be liable [for transferring an article interposed] between [the two domains], one is not liable [for transferring these two halves].133As long as the two half-measures were taken from the same original domain and placed down together in the same domain, they can be combined. If, however, a totally separate domain interposes between them, the two actions cannot be considered to be complementary. If there is a carmelit between them, they are considered to be a single domain,134For according to the Torah, a carmelit is considered to be a makom patur. (See the notes on Chapter 14, Halachah 1). Hence, it is not considered to be an interruption between the two domains. and [the person who transfers the two half-measures] is liable to bring a sin offering.135The commentaries note the apparent contradiction between the Rambam's ruling here and his ruling in Hilchot Zechiyah UMatanah 1:11. (See the gloss of the Lechem Mishneh on that halachah.)

כ״ההַמּוֹצִיא פָּחוֹת מִכַּשִּׁעוּר וְקֹדֶם שֶׁיַּנִּיחוֹ נִתְפַּח וְחָזַר כַּשִּׁעוּר. וְכֵן הַמּוֹצִיא כַּשִּׁעוּר וְקֹדֶם שֶׁיַּנִּיחַ צָמַק וְחָזַר פָּחוֹת מִכַּשִּׁעוּר פָּטוּר:

²⁵When a person transfers less than the prescribed measure [of a substance], but before he places it down, [the substance] swells in size and reaches the prescribed measure [he is not liable].136As explained in Chapter 13, Halachah 5, the forbidden labor of transferring involves removing an article from one domain and placing it down in another domain. A sin offering is not required unless both activities are performed in a forbidden manner. Similarly, one is not liable if one transfers more than the prescribed measure [of a substance], but before he places it down [the substance] diminishes in size and becomes less than the prescribed measure.

כ״והַמּוֹצִיא כִּגְרוֹגֶרֶת לַאֲכִילָה וְצָמְקָה קֹדֶם הַנָּחָה וְחָשַׁב עָלֶיהָ לִזְרִיעָה אוֹ לִרְפוּאָה שֶׁאֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ שִׁעוּר הֲרֵי זֶה חַיָּב כְּמַחֲשַׁבְתּוֹ שֶׁל עֵת הַנָּחָה. הוֹצִיא פָּחוֹת מִכִּגְרוֹגֶרֶת לִזְרִיעָה וְקֹדֶם הַנָּחָה חָזַר וְחָשַׁב עָלֶיהָ לַאֲכִילָה פָּטוּר. וְאִם תָּפְחָה קֹדֶם הַנָּחָה וְנַעֲשֵׂית כִּגְרוֹגֶרֶת קֹדֶם שֶׁיִּמָּלֵךְ עָלֶיהָ לַאֲכִילָה חַיָּב. שֶׁאֲפִלּוּ לֹא חִשֵּׁב הָיָה מִתְחַיֵּב עַל מַחְשֶׁבֶת הַהוֹצָאָה:

²⁶[The following rule applies when] a person transfers a portion [of a food] the size of a dried fig with the intent of eating it,137Thus the akirah (removal) of the article is performed when the article is of sufficient size to incur liability (Halachah 1). but before he places it down it diminishes in size: If he [reconsiders and] decides to use it to sow, or for medicinal purposes,138In which case, he is liable, regardless of the size of the article (Halachah 20). he is liable, because of the intent he had at the time he placed it down.139Since at the time of both the removal and the placing down (hanachah) of the substance, its size was sufficient to incur liability according to the intent which the person had in mind, he is liable. The fact that he experienced a change of mind in the interim is not of consequence.If a person transfers [a quantity of seeds] smaller than the size of a dried fig with the intent of sowing them, but before he places them down, changes his mind and decides to eat them, he is not liable.140For at the time he placed the object down, it was not of sufficient size to incur liability. If [the seeds] swell in size before they are placed down and reach the size of a dried fig before141Based on the following halachah, it is clear that the increase in the seed's size must take place before the person's change of mind. he changes his mind [and decides to] eat them, he is liable.142For at the time the article was removed from its original place and it the time it was placed down, it was of sufficient size to incur liability. Even if he had not change his mind, he would still have been liable because of his original intent.

כ״זהוֹצִיא כִּגְרוֹגֶרֶת לַאֲכִילָה וְצָמְקָה וְחָזְרָה וְתָפְחָה קֹדֶם הַנָּחָה הֲרֵי זֶה סָפֵק אִם נִדְחָה אוֹ לֹא נִדְחָה. זָרַק כְּזַיִת אֳכָלִין לְבַיִת טָמֵא וְהִשְׁלִים כְּזַיִת זֶה לָאֳכָלִים שֶׁהָיוּ שָׁם וְנַעֲשָׂה הַכּל כְּבֵיצָה הֲרֵי זֶה סָפֵק אִם נִתְחַיֵּב עַל כְּזַיִת מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהִשְׁלִים הַשִּׁעוּר לְעִנְיַן טֻמְאָה אוֹ לֹא נִתְחַיֵּב:

²⁷When a person transfers a portion [of a food] the size of a dried fig with the intent of eating it, it diminishes in size, and then it swells [to the size of a dried fig] again before it is placed down, there is a question [whether he is liable or not]: [Does the fact that in the interim, it was not of sufficient size for its transfer to incur liability cause that liability] to be deferred [forever] or not?143The question of the Rambam (based on Shabbat 91b) is whether the fact that the object was too small for its transfer to incur liability in the time between its akirah and its hanachah causes these actions to be considered as unconnected or not.Note the gloss of the Kessef Mishneh on Hilchot Sh'ar Avot HaTum'ah 4:13, which quotes the distinction made by Rav Yitzchak Korcus between that halachah and the present one.When a person throws a portion of the food the size of an olive into a house that is impure144Because of the presence of a corpse or the presence of tzara'at. and by doing so, complements the quantity of food145The Maggid Mishneh questions why the Rambam changes the wording used in the source for this teaching (Shabbat, loc. cit.), which mentions food that is terumah and applies this concept to all foods. The Mishneh LaMelech, however, resolves this difficulty, explaining that according to the Rambam's conception of the laws of ritual impurity (see Hilchot Tum'at Ochalin 4:1), there is no difference between terumah and other foods. that was already in the house, causing there to be an amount [of food] the size of an egg [in the impure house], there is a question [whether he is liable or not]: Is he liable for transferring [the portion of] food that is equivalent to the size of an olive, because he completed the measure of food that is significant with regard to the laws of ritual impurity, or is he not liable?146The commentaries cite this passage as a source, teaching that a dried fig is larger than an olive. Ordinarily, a person who transfers an amount of food the size of an olive is not liable. Nevertheless, this instance is different, because of the laws of ritual impurity.Food cannot impart ritual impurity to other substances unless a portion equivalent to the size of an egg is present. Thus, before the person threw the food into the house, there was not sufficient food there to impart impurity, and the food he threw in completed that measure. Hence, the Rambam (based on Shabbat, loc. cit.) asks whether the fact that the transfer of the food is significant with regard to the laws of ritual impurity is of consequence with regard to the Sabbath laws.

כ״חהַמּוֹצִיא פָּחוֹת מִכַּשִּׁעוּר אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהוֹצִיאוֹ בִּכְלִי פָּטוּר. שֶׁהַכְּלִי טְפֵלָה לוֹ וְאֵין כַּוָּנָתוֹ לְהוֹצָאַת הַכְּלִי אֶלָּא לְהוֹצָאַת מַה שֶּׁבְּתוֹכוֹ וַהֲרֵי אֵין בּוֹ כַּשִּׁעוּר. לְפִיכָךְ אִם הוֹצִיא אָדָם חַי שֶׁאֵינוֹ כָּפוּת בְּמִטָּה פָּטוּר אַף עַל הַמִּטָּה שֶׁהַמִּטָּה טְפֵלָה לוֹ. וְכֵן כָּל כַּיּוֹצֵא בָּזֶה. הַמּוֹצִיא קֻפַּת הָרוֹכְלִים אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁיֵּשׁ בָּהּ מִינִין הַרְבֵּה וַאֲפִלּוּ הוֹצִיאָן בְּתוֹךְ כַּפּוֹ אֵינוֹ חַיָּב אֶלָּא אַחַת. שֵׁם הוֹצָאָה אַחַת הִיא:

²⁸A person who transfers less than the standard measure [of a substance] is not liable even though he transfers it in a container. [The rationale is that] the container is subsidiary [to its contents]; [when the person transfers it,] he is concerned not with the container, but with its contents.147Since the container is desired only because of its function as an accessory for its contents, it is not considered to be an entity in its own right. Unless the person has a desire for it itself, he is not liable for transferring it, regardless of its size. (See Shabbat 93b.)Likkutei Sichot (Vol. XVII, p. 48, Vol. XIX, p. 193) focuses on the homiletic dimensions of this halachah, interpreting it as an indication of how an object's spiritual qualities are of such primacy that they eclipse totally its material dimensions.Accordingly, if a person transfers a man who is alive and who is not bound on a bed, he is not liable,148This ruling depends on the principle stated in Halachah 16: "A living creature carries itself." As mentioned in that halachah, this principle does not apply if the person is bound. Since the person would not be liable for carrying the man, he is also not liable for carrying the bed on which he is lying. for the bed is considered to be subsidiary to the man. These principles apply in all similar situations.A person who transfers a perfumer's box is liable for only a single [sin offering], although it contains many different types [of scents].149Although the box contains several distinct entities, the person is considered to have performed a single forbidden activity. Therefore, he is not liable for a separate sin offering for every article he transfers. [Similarly,] even if he transfers [several items] in his hand,150With this clause, the Rambam indicates that this ruling is not dependent on the principle (see Chapter 12, Halachah 11) that the contents of a box are considered to be a single entity, but on a different rationale. he is liable for only a single sin offering, for [he has performed] a single act of transfer.

א׳כָּל כְּלֵי הַמִּלְחָמָה אין יוֹצְאִין בָּהֶן בְּשַׁבָּת. וְאִם יָצָא אִם הָיוּ כֵּלִים שֶׁהֵן דֶּרֶךְ מַלְבּוּשׁ כְּגוֹן שִׁרְיוֹן וְכוֹבַע וּמַגָּפַיִם שֶׁעַל הָרַגְלַיִם הֲרֵי זֶה פָּטוּר. וְאִם יָצָא בְּכֵלִים שֶׁאֵינָן דֶּרֶךְ מַלְבּוּשׁ כְּגוֹן רֹמַח וְסַיִף וְקֶשֶׁת וְאַלָּה וּתְרִיס הֲרֵי זֶה חַיָּב:

¹We may not go out [wearing] any weaponry on the Sabbath.1I.e., this prohibition applies to all weaponry. As the Rambam continues, there are instances where carrying such weaponry violates a Torah prohibition, and other instances where the prohibition is Rabbinic in origin.This chapter represents a turning point in the structure of this text. From the middle of Chapter 12 onward, the Rambam has delineated the various factors involved in the forbidden labor of transferring articles from one domain to another. In this halachah, he begins speaking of the Rabbinic safeguards associated with this forbidden labor. [The following rules apply should one] go out [wearing weaponry]: If they are objects that are worn as garments - e.g., a coat of mail, a helmet, or iron boots2Our translation is based on the Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah (Shabbat 6:2). - one is not liable. If, however, one goes out [carrying]3Even when hanging from one's garments - e.g., a sword in a scabbard attached to one's belt. articles that are not worn as garments - e.g., a spear, a sword, a bow, a round shield4Our translation is based on the Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah (Shabbat 6:4). Rashi (Shabbat 63a) renders this term as "a mace." or a triangular shield - he is liable.5The Rambam's ruling is based on Shabbat 63a, which mentions a difference of opinion between the Sages and Rabbi Eliezer. Our Sages rule that one is liable, while Rabbi Eliezer differs and states that one is not liable for carrying weapons, for they are ornaments, like jewelry.Our Sages support their position by quoting Isaiah's (2:4) prophecy of the Era of the Redemption, "And they shall beat their swords into plowshares.... Nation shall not lift up sword against nation...." Since weaponry will be nullified in that era of ultimate fulfillment, it is a sign that it is not a true and genuine ornament.The Lechem Mishneh (in his gloss on Hilchot Teshuvah 8:7) notes that there is a slight difficulty with the Rambam's ruling. The Talmud associates the opinion of the Sages (which the Rambam accepts) with the conception that Mashiach's coming will initiate a miraculous world order, and Rabbi Eliezer's ruling with the opinion of Shemuel that "there is no difference between the present era and the Messianic era except [for the emancipation from] the dominion of [gentile] powers." In Hilchot Teshuvah 9:2, and more explicitly in Hilchot Melachim 12:1-2, the Rambam explains Shmuel's position, stating:One should not entertain the thought that in the Messianic era any element of the natural order will be nullified, or that there will be an innovation in the order of creation. On the contrary, the world will continue according to its pattern.Nevertheless, this approach does not necessarily contradict the Rambam's rulings here. The Rambam also maintains that war will be nullified in the Messianic era, as he writes (loc. cit. 12:5): "In that era, there will be neither famine nor war, neither envy nor competition." Nevertheless, its nullification will not come because of miracles that defy the natural order, but because of the reasons he continues to mention in that halachah - that "good will flow in abundance" and "'the world will be filled with the knowledge of God' (Isaiah 11:9 ."

ב׳אֵין יוֹצְאִין בְּסַנְדָּל מְסֻמָּר שֶׁסְּמָרוֹ לְחַזְּקוֹ. וַאֲפִלּוּ בְּיוֹם טוֹב גָּזְרוּ עָלָיו שֶׁלֹּא יֵצֵא בּוֹ. וּמֻתָּר לָצֵאת בְּאַבְנֵט שֶׁיֵּשׁ עָלָיו חֲתִיכוֹת קְבוּעוֹת שֶׁל כֶּסֶף וְשֶׁל זָהָב כְּמוֹ שֶׁהַמְּלָכִים עוֹשִׂין. מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא תַּכְשִׁיט וְכָל שֶׁהוּא תַּכְשִׁיט מֻתָּר. וְהוּא שֶׁלֹּא יְהֵא רָפוּי שֶׁמָּא יִפּל בִּרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים וְיָבוֹא לַהֲבִיאוֹ:

²We may not go out wearing a sandal studded with nails to fasten it.6The Ritba (in his gloss on Shabbat 60a) states that these nails were used to fasten the soles of the sandals to the upper portion.In his Commentary on the Mishnah [Shabbat 6:2 (based on Shabbat, loc. cit., and Beitzah 14b)], the Rambam explains that in an era of religious oppression, many Jews gathered together for prayer and study in a hidden place. When they heard a noise outside, they suspected that they had been discovered by their enemies and panicked. In the confusion, hundreds were crushed by these nailed sandals. Even on festivals, the Sages decreed that we should not go out wearing [such sandals].7Since these are days of public assembly, our Sages felt that wearing these sandals would arouse disturbing memories of the abovementioned incident.There is a question whether the prohibitions against wearing such sandals apply at present despite the fact that our nailed sandals are made differently from those of Talmudic times. Rabbenu Yitzchak Alfasi quotes this prohibition in his Halachot. Since he mentions only those laws that are relevant in the post-Talmudic era, this inclusion would seem to imply that the prohibition should be followed now as well. Rabbenu Asher differs. Significantly, Rav Yosef Karo does not mention this prohibition in his Shulchan Aruch, nor does the Ramah refer to it in his gloss on that text.It is permitted to go out wearing a belt with pieces of gold and silver imbedded into it as kings wear, for this is a piece of jewelry, and it is permitted [to wear] all jewelry. [This license is granted] provided [the belt] does not hang loosely, lest it fall in the public domain and one go and bring it.8This reason, that perhaps an article will fall and be carried in the public domain, is mentioned several times throughout this chapter and is relevant to both men and women.

ג׳טַבַּעַת שֶׁיֵּשׁ עָלֶיהָ חוֹתָם מִתַּכְשִׁיטֵי הָאִישׁ הִיא וְאֵינָהּ מִתַּכְשִׁיטֵי הָאִשָּׁה. וְשֶׁאֵין עָלֶיהָ חוֹתָם מִתַּכְשִׁיטֵי אִשָּׁה וְאֵינָהּ מִתַּכְשִׁיטֵי הָאִישׁ. לְפִיכָךְ אִשָּׁה שֶׁיָּצָאת בְּטַבַּעַת שֶׁיֵּשׁ עָלֶיהָ חוֹתָם. וְאִישׁ שֶׁיָּצָא בְּטַבַּעַת שֶׁאֵין עָלֶיהָ חוֹתָם חַיָּבִין. וּמִפְּנֵי מָה הֵן חַיָּבִין וַהֲרֵי הוֹצִיאוּ אוֹתָן שֶׁלֹּא כְּדֶרֶךְ הַמּוֹצִיאִין שֶׁאֵין דֶּרֶךְ הָאִישׁ לְהוֹצִיא בְּאֶצְבָּעוֹ אֶלָּא טַבַּעַת הָרְאוּיָה לוֹ וְכֵן הָאִשָּׁה אֵין דַּרְכָּהּ לְהוֹצִיא בְּאֶצְבָּעָהּ אֶלָּא טַבַּעַת הָרְאוּיָה לָהּ. מִפְּנֵי שֶׁפְּעָמִים נוֹתֵן הָאִישׁ טַבַּעְתּוֹ לְאִשְׁתּוֹ לְהַצְנִיעָהּ בַּבַּיִת וּמַנַּחַת אוֹתָהּ בְּאֶצְבָּעָהּ בְּעֵת הוֹלָכָה. וְכֵן הָאִשָּׁה נוֹתֶנֶת טַבַּעְתָּהּ לְבַעְלָהּ לְתַקְּנָהּ אֵצֶל הָאֻמָּן וּמַנִּיחַ אוֹתָהּ בְּאֶצְבָּעוֹ בְּעֵת הוֹלָכָה עַד חֲנוּת הָאֻמָּן וְנִמְצְאוּ שֶׁהוֹצִיאוּ אוֹתָן כְּדֶרֶךְ שֶׁדַּרְכָּן לְהוֹצִיאָן וּלְפִיכָךְ חַיָּבִין:

³A ring that has a seal9As reflected by Esther 3:10 and other sources, in Biblical and Talmudic times men wore signet rings, using the seal to authorize their approval of documents. is considered to be a piece of jewelry for a man, but not for a woman. A ring without a seal, by contrast, is considered to be a piece of jewelry for a woman,10The commentaries draw attention to a problematic statement in the Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah (Shabbat 6:1), where he states that a ring without a seal is somewhat like, but not exactly, a piece of jewelry for women. but not for a man. Accordingly, a woman who goes out wearing a ring that has a seal and a man who goes out wearing a ring without a seal are liable.11Since these rings are not considered to be jewelry for these individuals, they are considered to be carrying them in the public domain.Why are they liable? They did not transfer them in an ordinary manner12As mentioned in Chapter 12, Halachot 12-14, a person is liable for transferring an article only when he does so in an ordinary fashion. - i.e., it is not an ordinary practice for a man to wear a ring on his finger that is not appropriate for him, nor for a woman to wear a ring on her finger that is not appropriate for her. [Nevertheless,] there are times when a man gives his ring to his wife to hide at home and she places it on her finger while she is walking. Similarly, there are times when a woman gives her ring to her husband to take to a jeweler to fix, and he places it on his finger while he is walking to the jeweler's store. Therefore, [although the rings are not appropriate for the individuals mentioned above, because they do occasionally wear such rings,] they are considered to have transferred them in an ordinary manner. Accordingly, they are liable.

ד׳לֹא תֵּצֵא אִשָּׁה בְּטַבַּעַת שֶׁאֵין עָלֶיהָ חוֹתָם אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהוּא מִתַּכְשִׁיטֶיהָ גְּזֵרָה שֶׁמָּא תּוֹצִיאָהּ בִּרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים לְהַרְאוֹת לְחַבְרוֹתֶיהָ כְּדֶרֶךְ שֶׁהַנָּשִׁים עוֹשׂוֹת תָּמִיד. וְאִם יָצָאת בָּהּ פְּטוּרָה. אֲבָל הָאִישׁ מֻתָּר לָצֵאת בְּטַבַּעַת שֶׁיֵּשׁ עָלֶיהָ חוֹתָם מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא תַּכְשִׁיט וְאֵין דַּרְכּוֹ לְהֵרָאוֹת. וְנָהֲגוּ כָּל הָעָם שֶׁלֹּא יֵצְאוּ בְּטַבַּעַת כְּלָל:

⁴Although a ring that does not have a seal is considered to be a piece of jewelry for a woman, a woman should not go out wearing such a ring, lest she take it off in the public domain and show it to her friends, as women often do.13This point is mentioned several times in this chapter as a rationale for restrictions governing women's wearing jewelry in the public domain. If, however, she went out wearing such a ring, she is not liable.14Although all Talmudic authorities prohibit women from wearing jewelry in public on the Sabbath, from the era of the Geonim onward, and particularly in the Ashkenazic community, it has become customary for women to do so. Among the rationales offered by the Rabbis (Tosafot, Shabbat 64b; Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 303:18) for this leniency are:a) Today, there is no concept of a true public domain, for there are no places through which 600,000 people pass at one time. Since the restrictions against carrying in a carmelit are only safeguards against carrying in a public domain, it would be improper to impose a safeguard against carrying in a carmelit, for a safeguard is not instituted to protect a safeguard.[There are several difficulties with this rationale: Firstly, many Rishonim (including the Rambam) do not accept this principle. Furthermore, today many large metropolises are a public domain according to all views.]b) The socio-economic climate of the age has changed. In the Talmudic period, most women did not have jewelry, nor did they see their friends that often, nor did they have private places in which to socialize. Therefore, there was reason for the concern that jewelry would be taken off and displayed in the public domain. When the above mentioned conditions changed, this suspicion no longer applied, and there was no reason for this stringency.A man, by contrast, may go out wearing a ring that has a seal, for it is considered to be a piece of jewelry for him and it is not usual practice for a man to show off [his jewelry to others].15Indeed, our Sages never imposed any restrictions on men's carrying in the public domain for this reason. It has, [nevertheless,] become accepted practice for people to go out without wearing any rings at all.

ה׳אִשָּׁה שֶׁיָּצְאָה בְּמַחַט נְקוּבָה חַיֶּבֶת וְהָאִישׁ פָּטוּר. וְאִישׁ שֶׁיָּצָא בְּמַחַט שֶׁאֵינָהּ נְקוּבָה חַיָּב וְהָאִשָּׁה פְּטוּרָה מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהִיא מִתַּכְשִׁיטֶיהָ וְאֵינָהּ אֲסוּרָה אֶלָּא גְּזֵרָה שֶׁמָּא תַּרְאֶה לְחַבְרוֹתֶיהָ. זֶה הַכְּלָל כָּל הַיּוֹצֵא בְּדָבָר שֶׁאֵינוֹ מִתַּכְשִׁיטָיו וְאֵינוֹ דֶּרֶךְ מַלְבּוּשׁ וְהוֹצִיאוֹ כְּדֶרֶךְ שֶׁמּוֹצִיאִין אוֹתוֹ דָּבָר חַיָּב. וְכָל הַיּוֹצֵא בְּדָבָר שֶׁהוּא מִתַּכְשִׁיטָיו וְהָיָה רָפוּי וְאֶפְשָׁר שֶׁיִּפּל בִּמְהֵרָה וְיָבֹא לַהֲבִיאוֹ בִּרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים. וְכֵן אִשָּׁה שֶׁיָּצָאת בְּתַכְשִׁיטִין שֶׁדַּרְכָּן לִשְׁלֹף אוֹתָן וּלְהַרְאוֹתָן הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ פְּטוּרִין. וְכָל דָּבָר שֶׁהוּא תַּכְשִׁיט וְאֵינוֹ נוֹפֵל וְאֵין דַּרְכָּהּ לְהַרְאוֹתוֹ הֲרֵי זֶה מֻתָּר לָצֵאת בּוֹ. לְפִיכָךְ אֶצְעָדָה שֶׁמַּנִּיחִין אוֹתָהּ בַּזְּרוֹעַ אוֹ בַּשּׁוֹק יוֹצְאִין בָּהּ בְּשַׁבָּת וְהוּא שֶׁתִּהְיֶה דְּבוּקָה לַבָּשָׂר וְלֹא תִּשָּׁמֵט. וְכֵן כָּל כַּיּוֹצֵא בָּזֶה:

⁵A woman who goes out [wearing] a pin with an eye is liable,16Since it has an eye, it is used as a needle for sewing, and therefore is not considered an ornament. Women are liable for transferring them on the Sabbath, because they frequently sew, and often carry needles by sticking them in their clothes. Hence, they are considered to have carried the needle in an ordinary manner. while a man is not liable.17With the exception of a tailor, a man is not liable for carrying a needle stuck in his clothes on the Sabbath, since this is not the ordinary way in which these items are carried.Our explanation in this and the previous note follows the interpretation of Rabbenu Avraham, the Rambam's son (Birkat Avraham 16). It must be emphasized that the Rambam's rulings in Halachah 21 present a difficulty to this explanation. Rav Kapach offers a resolution to this difficulty by explaining that Halachah 20 refers to a needle which is a symbol of the tailor's trade. Wearing it is not considered to be transferring an article in the ordinary manner. In contrast, the present halachah refers to a functional needle that is carried in a craftsman's garment from time to time.Significantly, Rashi and other Rishonim interpret Shabbat 62a, the source for this halachah, differently. Their views are given greater emphasis by the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 301:8). A man who goes out [wearing] a pin without an eye is liable,18Since it is not a piece of jewelry for him. while a woman is not liable, for this is considered to be a piece of jewelry for her.19Shabbat 60a relates that ordinarily these pins would have a gold plate attached to them. The pointed end of the pin would be stuck into her head-covering, and the plate would hang down over her forehead. She is prohibited against wearing it only because of a decree lest she [take it off and] show it to her friends.The [following] general principles apply: Whenever a person goes out wearing an item that is not considered to be jewelry for him, and it is not [worn as] a garment, he is liable if he transfers it in an ordinary manner.Whenever a man goes out wearing a piece of jewelry that hangs loosely and could easily fall and thus cause him to bring it through the public domain, and similarly, whenever a woman goes out wearing a piece of jewelry that she is likely to take off and show [to her friends], they are not liable.Whenever an adornment that is not likely to fall, nor is it likely to be shown to others, [a woman] is permitted to go out [wearing] it. Therefore, she may go out [wearing] a bracelet that is placed on the forearm or [a garter that is placed on] the thigh if it clings tightly to the flesh and will not slip off.20Our translation is based on the Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah (Shabbat 6:4). As mentioned in the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 303:15), there are authorities who forbid the wearing of forearm bracelets. These rules apply in other similar situations.

ו׳לֹא תֵּצֵא אִשָּׁה בְּחוּטֵי צֶמֶר אוֹ בְּחוּטֵי פִּשְׁתָּן אוֹ בִּרְצוּעוֹת הַקְּשׁוּרוֹת לָהּ עַל רֹאשָׁהּ שֶׁמָּא תַּחְלֹץ אוֹתָהּ בִּשְׁעַת טְבִילָה וְתַעֲבִירָהּ בִּרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים. וְלֹא בְּצִיץ שֶׁמַּנַּחַת בֵּין עֵינֶיהָ וְלֹא בִּלְחָיַיִם שֶׁל זָהָב שֶׁיּוֹרְדִין מִן הַצִּיץ עַל לְחָיֶיהָ בִּזְמַן שֶׁאֵינָן תְּפוּרִין זֶה בָּזֶה. וְלֹא בַּעֲטָרָה שֶׁל זָהָב שֶׁמֻּנַּחַת בְּרֹאשָׁהּ וְלֹא בִּכְבָלִים שֶׁיּוֹצְאִין בָּהֶן הַבָּנוֹת בְּרַגְלֵיהֶן כְּדֵי שֶׁלֹּא יִפְסְעוּ פְּסִיעָה גַּסָּה שֶׁלֹּא יַפְסִידוּ בְּתוּלֵיהֶן. כָּל אֵלּוּ אֲסוּרִין לָצֵאת בָּהֶן בְּשַׁבָּת שֶׁמָּא יִפְּלוּ וּתְבִיאֵן בְּיָדָהּ:

⁶A woman should not go out with woolen strands, linen strands, or straps attached to her head lest she remove them when she immerses herself21These threads are tied to the woman's hair. Accordingly, they would be considered to be a חציצה, "intervening substance," and would have to be removed before immersion (see Hilchot Mikvaot 1:12, 2:5). The suspicion is that afterwards, they would be carried in the public domain. and carry them in the public domain.She should not go out [wearing] a frontlet on her forehead,22In his Commentary on the Mishnah [Shabbat 6:1 (based on Shabbat 57b), the Rambam describes this as a gold plate extending on the forehead from ear to ear. nor with bangles of gold that hang from the frontlet on her cheeks if they are not sewn together.23In his Commentary on the Mishnah [loc. cit. (according to Rav Kapach's translation), which is based on Shabbat 57b], the Rambam adds "and are sewn into her head-covering." Since a woman is not likely to remove her head-covering entirely when her jewelry is sewn into it, we do not suspect that she will take it off and show it to her friends in the public domain. (See Halachah 10.)This interpretation (which resolves the question the Ra'avad raises in his gloss on this halachah and which reflects the interpretation of our Sages, Shabbat 57b) presents difficulties, because of the Rambam's final clause, "It is forbidden to go out [wearing] any of these articles, lest they fall and one carry them by hand." Note the commentaries of the Merkevet HaMishneh and the Seder HaMishneh, who address themselves to this difficulty. Nor may [she go out wearing] a crown of gold on her head,24A golden crown engraved with an impression of the city of Jerusalem. nor with the ankle chains worn by maidens so that they will not take long strides and thus destroy [the signs of] their virginity.It is forbidden to go out [wearing] any of these articles lest they fall and one carry them by hand.

ז׳לֹא תֵּצֵא אִשָּׁה בְּקַטְלָא שֶׁבְּצַוָּארָה וְלֹא בְּנִזְמֵי הָאַף וְלֹא בִּצְלוֹחִית שֶׁל פְּלַיָּיטוֹן הַקְּבוּעָה עַל זְרוֹעָהּ. וְלֹא בַּכִּיס הַקָּטָן הֶעָגל שֶׁמַּנִּיחִין בּוֹ שֶׁמֶן הַטּוֹב וְהוּא הַנִּקְרָא כּוֹבֶלֶת. וְלֹא בְּפֵאָה שֶׁל שֵׂעָר שֶׁמַּנַּחַת עַל רֹאשָׁהּ כְּדֵי שֶׁתֵּרָאֶה בַּעֲלַת שֵׂעָר הַרְבֵּה. וְלֹא בְּכָבוּל שֶׁל צֶמֶר שֶׁמַּקֶּפֶת אוֹתוֹ סָבִיב לְפָנֶיהָ. וְלֹא בְּשֵׁן שֶׁמַּנַּחַת בְּפִיהָ בִּמְקוֹם שֵׁן שֶׁנָּפַל. וְלֹא בְּשֵׁן שֶׁל זָהָב שֶׁמַּנַּחַת עַל שֵׁן שָׁחֹר אוֹ אָדֹם שֶׁיֵּשׁ בְּשִּׁנֶּיהָ. אֲבָל שֵׁן שֶׁל כֶּסֶף מֻתָּר מִפְּנֵי שֶׁאֵינוֹ נִכָּר. כָּל אֵלּוּ אֲסוּרִין לָצֵאת בָּהֶן שֶׁמָּא יִפְּלוּ וּתְבִיאֵם בְּיָדָהּ אוֹ תַּחְלֹץ וְתַרְאֶה לְחַבְרוֹתֶיהָ:

⁷A woman should not go out [wearing] a necklace,25In his Commentary on the Mishnah (Shabbat 6:1), the Rambam interprets this as a necklace with golden beads. Rashi (Shabbat 57b, 59b) interprets this as referring to a golden choker necklace. (See the notes on Halachah 4 regarding the Rabbinic opinions regarding wearing jewelry at present.) a nose ring,26Significantly, even in Talmudic times earrings were permitted. Rashi explains that this leniency was granted because earrings are difficult to remove. The Ramah (Orach Chayim 303:8) offers a different rationale: that a woman's head covering would cover her ears as well. Hence, there is no need to worry about her showing the earrings to her friends. a flask of perfume27In his Commentary on the Mishnah (Shabbat 6:3), the Rambam mentions that musk would usually be carried. attached to her forearm, a small round pouch28In his Commentary on the Mishnah (Shabbat, loc. cit.), the Rambam mentions that this pouch was also attractive, being made of gold or silver. in which balsam oil29Balsam oil is renowned for its pleasant fragrance. is placed, referred to as a cochellet.30Significantly, our text of the Mishnah states kovellet, replacing the כ with a ב. The meaning of the term, however, does not change.Nor should she wear a wig that will give the appearance that she has a full head of hair,31This refers to attractive hair glued to a thin surface and placed on a woman's head (Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah, Shabbat 6:5).Needless to say, in addition to the more inclusive leniencies involving jewelry in general, the nature of wigs and false teeth are different today. Therefore, there is no difficulty in wearing these items in the public domain. nor a woolen pad that goes around her face,32This pad was placed on a woman's forehead beneath the frontlet of gold (Shabbat 57b) in a manner similar to the woolen pad that the High Priest would wear under his forehead plate (Chulin 138a). Apparently this pad was also attractive and could serve as an ornament in its own right. nor a false tooth, nor a golden crown that she places over a black tooth or a red blemish that she has on her teeth. She may go out with a silver tooth, because this is not obvious.All these prohibitions were instituted lest {the article fall and [the woman] carry it in her hand or}33This clause is set off by braces, because based on manuscript copies of the Mishneh Torah and early printings, it appears to be a printer's addition and not part of the Rambam's original text. According to the Rambam, this suspicion is not relevant with regard to these particular articles. lest she remove it and show it to a friend.

ח׳כָּל שֶׁאָסְרוּ חֲכָמִים לָצֵאת בּוֹ לִרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים אָסוּר לוֹ לָצֵאת בּוֹ אֲפִלּוּ בְּחָצֵר שֶׁאֵינָהּ מְעֹרֶבֶת. חוּץ מִכָּבוּל וּפֵאָה שֶׁל שֵׂעָר שֶׁמֻּתָּר לָצֵאת בָּהֶן לְחָצֵר שֶׁאֵינָהּ מְעֹרֶבֶת כְּדֵי שֶׁלֹּא תִּתְגַּנֶּה עַל בַּעְלָהּ. וְהַיּוֹצֵאת בִּצְלוֹחִית שֶׁל פְּלַיָּיטוֹן שֶׁאֵין בָּהּ בּשֶֹׁם כְּלָל חַיֶּבֶת:

⁸Whenever the Sages forbade wearing an item in the public domain, it is forbidden to go out [wearing] that item even in a courtyard for which there is no eruv.34Although the prohibition against carrying in such a courtyard is Rabbinic in origin and there is no possibility of transgressing a Torah prohibition, our Sages imposed the restrictions against carrying there as well. The Maggid Mishneh explains that this is not considered as instituting "a safeguard for a safeguard." Were women allowed to wear these adornments in a courtyard, they would most likely inadvertently proceed into the public domain while wearing them.The Maggid Mishneh also explains that according to the Rambam, there appears to be no prohibition against women wearing such articles at home. We do not suspect that they will inadvertently go outside while wearing them. Other Rishonim (the Ramban and the Rashba) differ and prohibit wearing ornaments even in one's home. As mentioned above, however, at present it is customary to adopt a more lenient approach regarding the entire issue of wearing jewelry. An exception is made with regard to a face pad and a wig; permission is granted to go out [wearing] them to a courtyard where there is no eruv so that [the woman] would not appear unattractive to her husband.A woman who goes out [carrying] an empty flask with no perfume is liable.

ט׳יוֹצְאָה אִשָּׁה בְּחוּטֵי שֵׂעָר הַקְּשׁוּרִים לָהּ עַל רֹאשָׁהּ מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהַמַּיִם בָּאִין בָּהֶן וְאֵינָן חוֹצְצִין וְאֵינָהּ חוֹלַצְתָּן אִם אֵרְעָה לָהּ טְבִילָה עַד שֶׁנִּגְזֹר שֶׁמָּא תְּבִיאֵם לִרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים. בֵּין שֶׁהָיוּ הַחוּטִין שֶׁלָּהּ בֵּין שֶׁל חֲבֶרְתָּהּ בֵּין שֶׁל בְּהֵמָה. וְלֹא תֵּצֵא הַזְּקֵנָה בְּשֶׁל יַלְדָּה שֶׁשֶּׁבַח הֵן לָהּ וְשֶׁמָּא תַּחְלֹץ וְתַרְאֵם לְחַבְרוֹתֶיהָ. אֲבָל יַלְדָּה יוֹצֵאת בְּחוּטֵי זְקֵנָה. וְכָל שֶׁהוּא אָרוּג יוֹצֵאת בּוֹ עַל רֹאשָׁהּ:

⁹A woman may go out [wearing] strands of hair that are attached to her head.35In contrast to the strands of wool or linen mentioned in Halachah 6. As the Rambam continues to explain, the reasons the Sages forbade wearing strands from other fabrics do not apply in this instance. Water passes through them and they are therefore not considered to be an interposing substance were she to immerse herself. [Consequently,] she will not remove them. Hence, there is no necessity to prohibit [wearing them lest she remove them] and carry them into the public domain.This applies regardless of whether [the strands of hair were taken from] the woman's own tresses, those of another woman, or from an animal.36See Shabbat 64b for an explanation why it is necessary to mention all three instances. An elderly woman should not, however, go out [wearing strands of hair from] a young woman, for they are becoming to her, [and we fear that] she might remove them and show them to a friend. A young woman, by contrast, may go out [wearing] strands of hair from an elderly woman.37Based on an alternate interpretation [or perhaps an alternate version] of Shabbat 64b, Rabbenu Asher and others differ and also forbid a young woman from wearing strands of hair from an elderly woman.Any woven hair-covering may be worn.

י׳יוֹצְאָה אִשָּׁה בְּחוּטִין שֶׁבְּצַוָּארָה מִפְּנֵי שֶׁאֵינָהּ חוֹנֶקֶת עַצְמָהּ בָּהֶן וְאֵינָן חוֹצְצִין. וְאִם הָיוּ צְבוּעִין אֲסוּרִים שֶׁמָּא תַּרְאֶה אוֹתָן לְחַבְרוֹתֶיהָ. וְיוֹצְאָה אִשָּׁה בְּכָלִיל שֶׁל זָהָב בְּרֹאשָׁהּ שֶׁאֵין יוֹצְאָה בּוֹ אֶלָּא אִשָּׁה חֲשׁוּבָה שֶׁאֵין דַּרְכָּהּ לַחֲלֹץ וּלְהַרְאוֹת. וְיוֹצְאָה בְּצִיץ וּבִלְחָיַיִם שֶׁל זָהָב בִּזְמַן שֶׁהֵן תְּפוּרִין בִּשְׂבָכָה שֶׁעַל רֹאשָׁהּ כְּדֵי שֶׁלֹּא יִפּלוּ. וְכֵן כָּל כַּיּוֹצֵא בָּהֶם:

¹⁰A woman may go out [wearing] strands38Even of wool and linen. As the Rambam continues to explain, the reasons why it was forbidden to wear strands of these fabrics tied to one's hair do not apply in this instance. [tied around] her neck, because she does not tie them tightly,39It is, however, forbidden for a woman to wear a choker necklace (Maggid Mishneh). and they are therefore not considered to be an interposing substance [with regard to ritual immersion]. If, however, they are colored, she may not go out wearing them, lest she show them to a friend.A woman may go out wearing a golden diadem, since these are worn only by dignified woman who are not accustomed to removing [their jewelry] and showing them to their friends.40This ruling serves as the basis for some of the lenient opinions mentioned in the notes on Halachah 4, which allow women to wear jewelry in the public domain at present. All our women are dignified and are not accustomed to removing their jewelry and showing it to their friends. A woman may also go out [wearing] a frontlet on her forehead with bangles of gold [that hang from the frontlet], provided they are sewn into her head-covering so that they do not fall.41See Halachah 6 and notes. The same applies in all similar situations.

י״איוֹצְאָה אִשָּׁה בְּמוֹךְ שֶׁבְּאָזְנָהּ וְהוּא שֶׁיִּהְיֶה קָשׁוּר בְּאָזְנָהּ. וּבְמוֹךְ שֶׁבְּסַנְדָּלָהּ וְהוּא שֶׁיִּהְיֶה קָשׁוּר בְּסַנְדָּלָהּ. וּבְמוֹךְ שֶׁהִתְקִינָה לְנִדָּתָהּ וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵינוֹ קָשׁוּר וַאֲפִלּוּ עָשְׂתָה לוֹ בֵּית יָד שֶׁאִם נָפַל אֵינָהּ מְבִיאָה אוֹתוֹ מִפְּנֵי מְאִיסוּתוֹ:

¹¹A woman may go out with wadding in her ear42To absorb the fluids it produces (Rashi, Shabbat 64b). provided it is attached to her ear, with wadding in her sandal43To make walking more comfortable (ibid.). provided it is attached to her sandal, and with wadding for her menstrual discharge44As reflected by the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 301:13), this applies only when the woman's intent is that the blood from the discharge will not cause her discomfort when it dries. If her intent is to prevent the discharge from soiling her clothes, it is forbidden. See Halachah 22. even though it is not attached. [The latter rule applies] even if it has a handle. Since it is repulsive, even if it falls, she would not carry it.

י״בוְיוֹצְאָה בְּפִלְפֵּל וּבְגַרְגִּיר מֶלַח וּבְכָל דָּבָר שֶׁתִּתֵּן לְתוֹךְ פִּיהָ מִפְּנֵי רֵיחַ הַפֶּה. וְלֹא תִּתֵּן לְכַתְּחִלָּה בְּשַׁבָּת. יוֹצְאוֹת הַנָּשִׁים בְּקֵיסָמִין שֶׁבְּאָזְנֵיהֶן וּבִרְעָלוֹת שֶׁבְּצַוָּארָן אוֹ שֶׁבִּכְסוּתָן וּבָרְדִיד הַפָּרוּף וּפוֹרֶפֶת בַּתְּחִלָּה בְּשַׁבָּת עַל הָאֶבֶן וְעַל הָאֱגוֹז וְיוֹצְאָה. וְלֹא תַּעֲרִים וְתִפְרֹף עַל הָאֱגוֹז כְּדֵי לְהוֹצִיאוֹ לִבְנָהּ הַקָּטָן. וְכֵן לֹא תִּפְרֹף עַל הַמַּטְבֵּעַ לְכַתְּחִלָּה מִפְּנֵי שֶׁאָסוּר לְטַלְטְלוֹ. וְאִם פָּרְפָה יוֹצְאָה בּוֹ:

¹²She may go out with pepper, a grain of salt, or any other substance that is placed in the mouth [to prevent] bad breath. She should not, however, place these substances in her mouth on the Sabbath itself.45I.e., if a woman had such a substance in her mouth before the Sabbath, she may continue holding it in her mouth on the Sabbath. She may not, however, place these substances in her mouth on the Sabbath itself, nor may she return such a substance to her mouth if it falls out.Based on Chapter 21, Halachah 24, it appears that the restrictions on placing a substance in one's mouth on the Sabbath to prevent bad breath apply only when one will continue carrying those substances in one's mouth outside.Women may go out [wearing] slivers of wood in their ears,46So that the holes in their pierced ears will not close (Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah, Shabbat 6:6). or with bells47Our translation is based on the Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah, ibid. Rashi (Shabbat 65a) and others translate רעולות as "veiled." See the notes on Halachah 18, which discuss the laws regarding wearing bells on the Sabbath. on their necks or garments, and with a cloak fastened with a make-shift button.48Jewish women living in Media would wear a coat with a strap in one of its upper corners. They would place a stone, nut, coin, or the like under the cloak to serve as a makeshift button. The strap would be looped around this button to fasten the cloak closed (Rashi, loc. cit.).Indeed, a woman may fasten her cloak in this manner using a stone or a nut49The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 303:22) emphasizes that a stone must be set aside for this purpose before the commencement of the Sabbath. Otherwise, it is muktzeh and is forbidden to be moved. on the Sabbath and go out, provided she does not [use this leniency as] a ruse and use a nut for this purpose in order to bring it to her young son. Similarly, she should not fasten her cloak in this manner using a coin,50Even if a coin was set aside for this purpose before the Sabbath, it is still considered to be muktzeh (Shulchan Aruch, loc. cit.). for it is forbidden to carry it. If her cloak was fastened [using a coin],51Before the commencement of the Sabbath (Shulchan Aruch, loc. cit.). she may go out wearing it.

י״גיוֹצֵא אָדָם בְּקֵיסָם שֶׁבְּשִׁנָּיו וְשֶׁבְּסַנְדָּלוֹ לִרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים. וְאִם נָפַל לֹא יַחֲזִיר. וּבְמוֹךְ וּבִסְפוֹג שֶׁעַל גַּבֵּי הַמַּכָּה וּבִלְבַד שֶׁלֹּא יִכְרֹךְ עֲלֵיהֶן חוּט אוֹ מְשִׁיחָה שֶׁהֲרֵי הַחוּט וְהַמְּשִׁיחָה חֲשׁוּבִין אֶצְלוֹ וְאֵינָם מוֹעִילִין לַמַּכָּה. וְיוֹצֵא בִּקְלִפַּת הַשּׁוּם וּבִקְלִפַּת הַבָּצָל שֶׁעַל הַמַּכָּה וּבְאֶגֶד שֶׁעַל גַּבֵּי מַכָּה וְקוֹשְׁרוֹ וּמַתִּירוֹ בְּשַׁבָּת. וּבְאִסְפְּלָנִית וּמְלוּגְמָא וּרְטִיָּה שֶׁעַל גַּבֵּי הַמַּכָּה וּבְסֶלַע שֶׁעַל הִצִּינִית וּבְבֵיצַת הַחַרְגּוֹל וּבְשֵׁן הַשּׁוּעָל וּבְמַסְמֵר הַצָּלוּב. וּבְכָל דָּבָר שֶׁתּוֹלִין אוֹתוֹ מִשּׁוּם רְפוּאָה וְהוּא שֶׁיֹּאמְרוּ הָרוֹפְאִים שֶׁהוּא מוֹעִיל:

¹³A man may go out to the public domain with a sliver of wood in his teeth52A toothpick. or in his sandal. If, however, it falls, he should not put it back. [He may go out with] wadding or a sponge over a wound,53We are permitted to wear any entity that heals the body on the Sabbath. Such articles are not considered to be a burden, but a garment or jewelry. In Chapter 21, Halachot 26-27, the Rambam discusses whether it is permissible to place wadding or bandages on a wound on the Sabbath. provided he does not wind a cord or a string over them. [The latter restriction applies] because he considers the cord or the string as important and they do not assist [the healing of] the wound.54These restrictions do not apply to a rag, because it is inconsequential. Since a cord or a string is considered somewhat important, it is not considered to be subsidiary to the bandage. Hence, the person is considered to be carrying them in the public domain.[He may go out with] a garlic peel or an onion peel on a wound, and with a bandage on a wound. He may open and close [the bandage] on the Sabbath. [He may go out with] a compress, a plaster, or a dressing on a wound. [Similarly, one may go out with] a sela55A coin from the Talmudic period. on a footsore, a locust's egg,56A cure for weak thighs (Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah, Shabbat 6:10). a fox's tooth,57A cure for both insomnia and hyperactivity (ibid.). a nail from a gallows,58A cure for continuous high fever (ibid.). and any other entity that is hung on a person's body to [bring] a cure, provided that physicians say that it is effective.59This halachah is very problematic for the Rambam. As explained at length in Hilchot Avodat Kochavim, Chapter 11, the Rambam maintains that all occult arts and superstitious practices are not only prohibited, but are absolute nonsense. It would appear that the latter cures mentioned are surely not practical medical advice, but rather a charm stemming from folklore (and perhaps pagan folklore). Indeed, for the latter reason, Rabbi Meir (according to the Rambam's text of Shabbat 6:10, our version states "the Sages") forbids the use of these practices even during the week.The Radbaz (Vol. V, Responsum 1436) compounds our difficulty in understanding the Rambam's view, citing the Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah (Yoma 8:4), which states:We do not transgress a commandment except for the purpose of healing, [using] an entity that both logic and experience say is necessary, but not to heal through charms, for these are weak matters that have no logical support, nor has experience proven them.The Radbaz, therefore, maintains that the Rambam is describing a situation where these articles are worn as pendants. Hence, they can be considered equivalent to pieces of jewelry. (See the following halachah with regard to an amulet that has not proved its efficacy.) If, however, they are carried by hand, it is forbidden to go out to the public domain with them on the Sabbath. The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 301:27) does not make such a stipulation and quotes the Rambam's words in this halachah without emendation.

י״דיוֹצֵאת הָאִשָּׁה בְּאֶבֶן תְּקוּמָה וּבְמִשְׁקַל אֶבֶן תְּקוּמָה שֶׁנִּתְכַּוֵּן וּשְׁקָלוֹ לִרְפוּאָה. וְלֹא אִשָּׁה עֻבָּרָה בִּלְבַד אֶלָּא אֲפִלּוּ שְׁאָר הַנָּשִׁים שֶׁמָּא תִּתְעַבֵּר וְתַפִּיל. וְיוֹצְאִין בְּקָמֵעַ מֻמְחֶה. וְאֵי זֶה הוּא קָמֵעַ מֻמְחֶה זֶה שֶׁרִפֵּא לִשְׁלֹשָׁה בְּנֵי אָדָם אוֹ שֶׁעֲשָׂהוּ אָדָם שֶׁרִפֵּא שְׁלֹשָׁה בְּנֵי אָדָם בִּקְמֵעִין אֲחֵרִים. וְאִם יָצָא בְּקָמֵעַ שֶׁאֵינוֹ מֻמְחֶה פָּטוּר. מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוֹצִיאוֹ דֶּרֶךְ מַלְבּוּשׁ. וְכֵן הַיּוֹצֵא בִּתְפִלִּין פָּטוּר:

¹⁴[A woman] may go out with a tekumah60A stone worn by a woman to prevent a miscarriage (Rashi, Shabbat 66b). stone or with the weight of a tekumah stone61A weight equivalent to that of the tekumah stone, which is purported to have a similar positive effect (ibid.)., which was weighed [and carried] with the intent that it serve as a remedy. This applies not only to a pregnant woman, but to all women, [as a safeguard] lest they become pregnant and miscarry.One may go out [wearing] an amulet that has proven its efficacy. What is an amulet that has proven its efficacy? [An amulet] that has cured three individuals62The Maggid Mishneh states that, in contrast to Rashi's view, according to the Rambam, an amulet that healed one person three times is not considered to have proved its efficacy. or that was prepared by an individual who cured three people with other amulets. If a person goes out wearing an amulet that has not proved its efficacy, he is not liable.63At the outset, however, one is forbidden to go out wearing such an amulet. [The rationale:] he carried it out as a garment.64I.e., the amulet is considered to be an ornament, like a piece of jewelry. Similarly, a person who goes out [wearing] tefillin is not liable.65There is no obligation to wear tefillin on the Sabbath, and we are therefore forbidden to wear them in most circumstances. (See Halachah 23 with regard to the exceptions.) Nevertheless, since they are worn as a garment, a person is not liable for wearing them.

ט״ומִי שֶׁיֵּשׁ בְּרַגְלוֹ מַכָּה יוֹצֵא בְּסַנְדָּל יְחִידִי בְּרַגְלוֹ הַבְּרִיאָה. וְאִם אֵין בְּרַגְלוֹ מַכָּה לֹא יֵצֵא בְּסַנְדָּל יָחִיד. וְלֹא יֵצֵא קָטָן בְּמִנְעָל גָּדוֹל אֲבָל יוֹצֵא הוּא בְּחָלוּק גָּדוֹל. וְלֹא תֵּצֵא אִשָּׁה בְּמִנְעָל רָפוּי וְלֹא בְּמִנְעָל חָדָשׁ שֶׁלֹּא יָצְאָה בּוֹ שָׁעָה אַחַת מִבְּעוֹד יוֹם. וְאֵין הַקִּטֵּעַ יוֹצֵא בְּקַב שֶׁלּוֹ. אַנְקַּטְמִין שֶׁל עֵץ אֵין יוֹצְאִין בָּהֶן בְּשַׁבָּת מִפְּנֵי שֶׁאֵינָן מִדַּרְכֵי הַמַּלְבּוּשׁ. וְאִם יָצְאוּ פְּטוּרִין:

¹⁵A person who has a wound on his foot may go out [wearing] one sandal on his healthy foot. If, however, a person does not have a wound on his foot, he may not go out [wearing] a single sandal.66Rashi (Shabbat 60a) gives two rationales for this ruling:a) The Jerusalem Talmud states that a person who wears only one shoe will be suspected of carrying the other in his cloak.b) Wearing one shoe may arouse the attention of others and cause them to mock him. We fear that in such a situation the person will remove the sandal that he is wearing and carry it.It is questionable whether the Rambam accepts the latter rationale. Although Rashi suggests that it applies with regard to several of the items mentioned in the previous halachot, the Rambam does not mention it - neither in this chapter nor in his Commentary on the Mishnah.A child67This is the simple interpretation of the word קטן. Note, however, the commentary of Rashi on Shabbat 141b, where he interprets the term as referring to a small adult. Since the obligation of a child is Rabbinic in origin, the Sages would not enforce any further safeguards on his conduct. should not go out [wearing] the sandals of an adult.68The rationale is that the sandal may fall off and the child might carry it in the public domain. He may, however, go out [wearing] the cloak of an adult. A woman should not go out [on the Sabbath], [wearing] a loose-fitting sandal,69Rashi interprets the Talmud (loc. cit.) as referring to a torn sandal. nor [wearing] a new sandal that she did not wear for even a short period of time before [the commencement of the Sabbath].70Lest the sandal prove uncomfortable and the woman carry it.A one-legged man may not go out [wearing] his wooden leg. We may not go out [wearing] wooden shoes,71Our translation is based on the Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah (Shabbat 6:8). Shabbat 66b offers three different Aramaic interpretations of this term. These interpretations, in turn, are understood differently by the later commentaries.In the above source, the Rambam states that since it is uncomfortable to walk in wooden shoes, they are not considered to be garments. because it is not the ordinary practice to wear them. If, however, one goes out [wearing] them, he is not liable.72For he did not transfer them in an ordinary manner (Merkevet HaMishneh).

ט״זיוֹצְאִין בִּפְקָרִיוֹן וּבְצִיפָה שֶׁבְּרָאשֵׁי בַּעֲלֵי חֲטָטִין. אֵימָתַי בִּזְמַן שֶׁצְּבָעָן בְּשֶׁמֶן וּכְרָכָן אוֹ שֶׁיָּצָא בָּהֶן שָׁעָה אַחַת מִבְּעוֹד יוֹם. אֲבָל אִם לֹא עָשָׂה בָּהֶן מַעֲשֶׂה וְלֹא יָצָא בָּהֶן קֹדֶם הַשַּׁבָּת אָסוּר לָצֵאת בָּהֶן:

¹⁶[A man] may go out [wearing] tufts of flax or a woolen wig worn by men with sores on their heads.73This reflects a fusion of the interpretation by Rav Hai Gaon (and Tosafot) of Shabbat 50a, which understands these substances to be makeshift wigs to cover baldness, and that of Rashi, who explains that these terms refer to wool that is placed on wounds. When does this apply? When he colored them with oil and wound them,74I.e., he performed a deed that indicates that he desires to use the wool as a wig. or he went out [wearing] them [at least] momentarily75If he wore the wool as a wig once before the Sabbath, this indicates that he is willing to use it for this purpose. Otherwise, since most people would not wear a wig of this nature, it is forbidden to wear it on the Sabbath because it is muktzeh (Shulchan Aruch HaRav 301:62). before the commencement of the Sabbath. If, however, he did not perform a deed [that indicated his desire to use these articles], nor did he go out [wearing] them before the Sabbath, it is forbidden for him to go out [wearing] them.

י״זיוֹצְאִין בְּשַׂק עָבֶה וּבִירִיעָה וּבְסָגוֹס עָבֶה וּבַחֲמִילָה מִפְּנֵי הַגְּשָׁמִים. אֲבָל לֹא בְּתֵבָה וְלֹא בְּקֻפָּה וְלֹא בְּמַחְצֶלֶת מִפְּנֵי הַגְּשָׁמִים. הַכַּר וְהַכֶּסֶת אִם הָיוּ רַכִּין וְדַקִּין כְּמוֹ הַבְּגָדִים מֻתָּר לְהוֹצִיאָן מֻנָּחִין עַל רֹאשׁוֹ בְּשַׁבָּת דֶּרֶךְ מַלְבּוּשׁ. וְאִם הָיוּ קָשִׁין הֲרֵי הֵן כְּמַשּׂאוֹי וַאֲסוּרִין:

¹⁷We may go out [wearing] coarse sackcloth, tent-cloth,76The source for this halachah is Nedarim 55b. In his Commentary on the Mishnah (Nedarim 7:3), the Rambam defines this term as "coarsely woven material that is not sown."a thick woolen blanket,77Our translation is taken from Rav Kapach's translation of the Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah (Oholot 11:3). or a coarse wrap78In his Commentary on the Mishnah (Nedarim 7:3), the Rambam defines this term as "a wrap made from an extremely coarse and thick fabric... used for protection from rain." [as protection] against rain.79Although these are not proper garments, since they resemble clothing and are useful in protecting one against the rain, they may be worn. We may not, however, go out [wearing] a chest, a container, or a mat, [as protection] against the rain.80In this instance, although the person is seeking protection from the rain, since these are not garments, he is considered to be carrying a burden (Rashi Nedarim, loc. cit.).When a pillow and a blanket are soft and thin as garments are, one may go out [wearing] them as a wrap on one's head on the Sabbath. When they are firm, they are considered to be burdens and it is forbidden.

י״חיוֹצְאִין בְּזוֹגִין הָאֲרוּגִין בַּבְּגָדִים. וְיוֹצֵא הָעֶבֶד בְּחוֹתָם שֶׁל טִיט שֶׁבְּצַוָּארוֹ אֲבָל לֹא בְּחוֹתָם שֶׁל מַתֶּכֶת שֶׁמָּא יִפּל וִיבִיאֶנּוּ. הַמִּתְעַטֵּף בְּטַלִּיתוֹ וְקִפְּלָהּ מִכָּאן וּמִכָּאן בְּיָדוֹ אוֹ עַל כְּתֵפוֹ אִם נִתְכַּוֵּן לְקַבֵּץ כְּנָפָיו כְּדֵי שֶׁלֹּא יִקָּרְעוּ אוֹ שֶׁלֹּא יִתְלַכְלְכוּ אָסוּר. וְאִם קִבְּצָן לְהִתְנָאוֹת בָּהֶן כְּמִנְהַג אַנְשֵׁי הַמָּקוֹם בְּמַלְבּוּשָׁן מֻתָּר:

¹⁸We may go out with bells woven81If, however, the bells are not woven into the garment, there are restrictions against wearing them, lest they become severed and the person carry them in the public domain. (See Shulchan Aruch HaRav 301:21, Mishnah Berurah 301:80.) into our clothes.82Note the Ramah (Orach Chayim 301:23), who states that this leniency applies only to bells whose clappers have been removed. Otherwise, it is forbidden to wear them, for jingling a bell is forbidden on the Sabbath. A servant83This refers to an eved Cana'ani - i.e., a servant who has been circumcised and has been immersed in the mikveh, and who has accepted the observance of the Torah's laws. Such a servant is obligated to fulfill all the mitzvot incumbent on a woman (Chaggigah 4a). (See Hilchot Issurei Bi'ah 12:11, 13:18.) may go out [wearing] a clay seal84A seal of identification, indicating to whom he belongs. The seal is permitted because it resembles a piece of jewelry. In contrast to a metal seal, the servant is allowed to go out wearing a clay seal, since were it to fall, it would break and would be worthless. around his neck,85But not hanging from his clothes (Maggid Mishneh). but not with a metal seal, lest it fall and he carry it.[The following rules apply when] a person wraps himself in a tallit86The intent here is not necessarily a prayer shawl, but also a garment worn for mundane purposes as well. We have, nevertheless, merely transliterated the Hebrew term rather than translate it as "garment," to indicate the type of clothing that is under discussion. The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 301:31) specifically states that this restriction does not apply to contemporary garments, because they are of a different type.Shulchan Aruch HaRav 301:36 and the Mishnah Berurah 301:117 emphasize that even the garments worn at present should not be lifted up extremely high. and folds it, either [holding the folds] in his hand, or [placing them] on his shoulder: If his intent is that [the ends of the garment] should not tear or become soiled, it is forbidden.87The Kessef Mishneh notes that the Rambam does not state that the person is liable, for the prohibition is Rabbinic in origin. If his intent is for the sake of fashion, since this is the style in which people of his locale wear their clothes, it is permitted.

י״טהַיּוֹצֵא בְּטַלִּית מְקֻפֶּלֶת וּמֻנַּחַת עַל כְּתֵפוֹ חַיָּב. אֲבָל יוֹצֵא הוּא בְּסוּדָר שֶׁעַל כְּתֵפוֹ אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין נִימָה קְשׁוּרָה לוֹ בְּאֶצְבָּעוֹ. וְכָל סוּדָר שֶׁאֵינוֹ חוֹפֶה רֹאשׁוֹ וְרֻבּוֹ אָסוּר לָצֵאת בּוֹ. הָיְתָה סַכְנִית קְצָרָה שֶׁאֵינָהּ רְחָבָה קוֹשֵׁר שְׁנֵי רָאשֶׁיהָ לְמַטָּה מִכְּתֵפַיִם וְנִמְצֵאת כְּמוֹ אַבְנֵט וּמֻתָּר לָצֵאת בָּהּ:

¹⁹A person who goes out [to the public domain] with a garment that is folded and placed on his shoulders is liable. He may, however, go out with a wrap [folded] around his shoulders even though a thread is not tied to his fingers.88Rashi (Shabbat 147a) explains that tying the string around one's finger will prevent the wrap from falling. We do not fear that the wrap will fall and the person will carry it in the public domain.The commentaries explain that in contrast to the garment mentioned in the first clause, since it is customary to wear a wrap folded, there is no difficulty in wearing it in this manner on the Sabbath. Nevertheless, in light of the final clause, they require that the wrap be large enough to cover one's head and the majority of one's body.Although there are more stringent opinions, the Shulchan Aruch HaRav 301:37 and the Mishnah Berurah 301:115 permit the wearing of scarfs that are not this large if it is accepted practice in a community to wear such garments.Whenever a wrap does not cover [a person's] head and the majority of his body,89The Maggid Mishneh and the Kessef Mishneh explain that this clause refers to a passage from Shabbat 147b which describes a wrap worn by women after a bath. he is forbidden to go out [wearing it]. A cloth that is worn as a head covering90Our translation is based on Rashi, Shabbat 147b. Rav Kapach suggests a different version of that text. Since this cloth is not large enough to cover the person's head and the majority of his body, the only way it may be worn is when one ties it as a belt. that is short and not wide should be tied below one's shoulders. Thus, it will serve as a belt and one will be permitted to go out [wearing] it.

כ׳מֻתָּר לְהִתְעַטֵּף בְּטַלִּית שֶׁיֵּשׁ בְּשִׂפְתוֹתֶיהָ מֶלֶל אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהֵן חוּטִין אֲרֻכִּין וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵינָן נוֹי הַטַּלִּית מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהֵן בְּטֵלִים לְגַבֵּי הַטַּלִּית וְאֵינוֹ מַקְפִּיד עֲלֵיהֶן בֵּין הָיוּ בֵּין לֹא הָיוּ. לְפִיכָךְ הַיּוֹצֵא בְּטַלִּית שֶׁאֵינָהּ מְצֻיֶּצֶת כְּהִלְכָתָהּ חַיָּב מִפְּנֵי שֶׁאוֹתָן הַחוּטִין חֲשׁוּבִין הֵן אֶצְלוֹ וְדַעְתּוֹ עֲלֵיהֶן עַד שֶׁיַּשְׁלִים חֶסְרוֹנָן וְיֵעָשׂוּ צִיצִית. אֲבָל טַלִּית הַמְצֻיֶּצֶת כְּהִלְכָתָהּ מֻתָּר לָצֵאת בָּהּ בֵּין בַּיּוֹם בֵּין בַּלַּיְלָה. שֶׁאֵין הַצִּיצִית הַגְּמוּרָה מַשּׂאוֹי אֶלָּא הֲרֵי הִיא מִנּוֹי הַבֶּגֶד וּמִתַּכְסִיסָיו כְּמוֹ הָאִמְרָא וְכַיּוֹצֵא בָּהּ. וְאִלּוּ הָיוּ חוּטֵי הַצִּיצִית שֶׁהִיא מְצֻיֶּצֶת כְּהִלְכָתָהּ מַשּׂאוֹי הָיָה חַיָּב הַיּוֹצֵא בָּהּ אֲפִלּוּ בְּיוֹם הַשַּׁבָּת שֶׁאֵין מִצְוַת עֲשֵׂה שֶׁאֵין בָּהּ כָּרֵת דּוֹחָה שַׁבָּת:

²⁰It is permitted to wrap oneself in a tallit91This does not refer to a tallit used for prayer, but rather to an ordinary shawl that resembles such a garment. that has unwoven strands92See the Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah (Keilim 29:1). at its edges, even though they are long and do not enhance the appearance of the tallit, because they are considered to be subsidiary to it. The person [wearing the tallit] does not care whether they exist or not.93Since they are of no consequence to the person whatsoever, they have no halachic importance either. It is as if they did not exist at all. If, however, the person was disturbed by their presence, it would be forbidden.Based on the above, a person who goes out [wearing] a tallit whose tzitzit are not halachically acceptable is liable. For these strands are important to him and he is concerned with completing what they are lacking, so that they can be considered to be tzitzit.94Since the tzitzit are important to the person, they are not considered to be subsidiary to the garment. Hence, wearing a garment to which they are attached is considered to be carrying a burden.When, however, the tzitzit are halachically acceptable, it is permitted to go out [wearing this garment] during the day and during the night.95The Rambam elaborates slightly in this instance to negate the opinion of Rabbenu Yitzchak Alfasi, who maintains that it is forbidden to wear tzitzit on Friday night. He explains that since one does not fulfill a mitzvah by wearing tzitzit at night, and yet the tzitzit are important, wearing a garment to which they are attached is equivalent to carrying a burden on the Sabbath.The Rambam does not accept this rationale, explaining that since the tzitzit are halachically acceptable, they are considered to be an adornment of the garment even when a mitzvah is not fulfilled by wearing them. In one of his responsa, the Rambam deals with this issue at length.In this context, note Shulchan Aruch HaRav 301:45, which states that this applies to a man, but not to a woman. For a woman, tzitzit are always considered a burden on the Sabbath. Note, however, the Mishnah Berurah, which cites differing views. Tzitzit that are halachically acceptable are not considered to be a burden, but rather to be an article that enhances the garment and beautifies it. Were the strands of tzitzit that are halachically acceptable to be considered a burden, one would be liable [for wearing such a garment] even on the Sabbath day, since a positive commandment [whose negation] is not [punishable by] karet does not supersede the Sabbath [prohibitions].96The commentaries note a slight difficulty with the Rambam's statements. Although there are only two positive commandments whose observance supersedes the Sabbath prohibitions - circumcision and the offering of the Paschal sacrifice - it is because of a specific divine decree and not because of the fact that they are punishable by karet that these mitzvot supersede the Sabbath laws.

כ״אלֹא יֵצֵא הַחַיָּט בְּשַׁבָּת בְּמַחַט הַתְּחוּבָה לוֹ בְּבִגְדוֹ. וְלֹא נַגָּר בְּקֵיסָם שֶׁבְּאָזְנוֹ. וְלֹא גַּרְדִּי בָּאִירָא שֶׁבְּאָזְנוֹ. וְלֹא סוֹרֵק בִּמְשִׁיחָה שֶׁבְּאָזְנוֹ. וְלֹא שֻׁלְחָנִי בְּדִינָר שֶׁבְּצַוָּארוֹ. וְלֹא צַבָּע בְּדֻגְמָא שֶׁבְּאָזְנוֹ. וְאִם יָצָא פָּטוּר אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁיָּצָא דֶּרֶךְ אֻמָּנוּתוֹ מִפְּנֵי שֶׁלֹּא הוֹצִיא כְּדֶרֶךְ הַמּוֹצִיאִין:

²¹A tailor should not go out on the Sabbath with a needle stuck into his clothes, nor a carpenter with a sliver of wood behind his ear,97Used by a carpenter to see if the different pieces of wood are level (Rashi, Shabbat 11b). This and all the other items mentioned are symbols that the various artisans would wear so that people could identify their professions. nor a weaver with wool in his ear, nor a carder of flax with a string around his neck, nor a money-changer with a dinar in his ear, nor a dyer with a sample in his ear.If one [of these individuals] goes out [wearing such an article], he is not liable. Although this is the usual practice for artisans of this craft, [he is not liable,] because he is not considered to have transferred the article in an ordinary manner.98I.e., since it is not the ordinary practice for most people to carry an article in this fashion, the fact that certain people do carry in this manner is not significant.It must be noted that this ruling (which follows the opinion of Rabbi Meir, Shabbat 11b) appears to contradict the explanation given by Rabbenu Avraham, the Rambam's son, to Halachah 5. (See the notes on that halachah.)

כ״בהַזָּב שֶׁיָּצָא בְּכִיס שֶׁלּוֹ חַיָּב מִפְּנֵי שֶׁאֵין דֶּרֶךְ כִּיס זֶה לְהוֹצִיאוֹ אֶלָּא כַּדֶּרֶךְ הַזֹּאת וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ לְגוּף הַהוֹצָאָה אֶלָּא כְּדֵי שֶׁלֹּא יִתְלַכְלְכוּ בְּגָדָיו שֶׁהַמְּלָאכָה שֶׁאֵינָהּ צְרִיכָה לְגוּפָהּ חַיָּב עָלֶיהָ:

²²A zav99A man with a discharge from his sexual organ resembling that resulting from venereal disease. (See Leviticus, chapter 15; Hilchot Mechusarei Kapparah, chapter 2.) who goes out with his receptacle is liable, for this is the only way this receptacle is transferred. [He is liable] although he has no need to take out [the receptacle] itself; [he needs it] only to prevent his clothes from being soiled.100As mentioned in the notes on Halachah 11, it is forbidden to wear an article merely to prevent one's clothes from being soiled. For a person who performs a labor is liable even when he has no need for the actual labor he performed.101See Chapter 1, Halachah 7.

כ״גהַמּוֹצֵא תְּפִלִּין בְּשַׁבָּת בִּרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים כֵּיצַד הוּא עוֹשֶׂה. לוֹבְשָׁן כְּדַרְכָּן, מֵנִיחַ שֶׁל יָד בְּיָדוֹ שֶׁל רֹאשׁ בְּרֹאשׁוֹ וְנִכְנָס וְחוֹלְצָן בְּבַיִת וְחוֹזֵר וְיוֹצֵא וְלוֹבֵשׁ זוּג שֵׁנִי וְחוֹלְצָן עַד שֶׁיַּכְנִיס אֶת כֻּלָּן. וְאִם הָיוּ הַרְבֵּה וְלֹא נִשְׁאַר מִן הַיּוֹם כְּדֵי לְהַכְנִיסָן דֶּרֶךְ מַלְבּוּשׁ הֲרֵי זֶה מַחְשִׁיךְ עֲלֵיהֶם וּמַכְנִיסָן בְּמוֹצָאֵי שַׁבָּת. וְאִם הָיָה בִּימֵי הַגְּזֵרָה שֶׁמִּתְיָרֵא לֵישֵׁב וּלְשָׁמְרָן עַד הָעֶרֶב מִפְּנֵי הַכּוּתִים מְכַסָּן בִּמְקוֹמָן וּמַנִּיחָן וְהוֹלֵךְ:

²³What should a man102We have used the word "man" in consideration of the ruling of the Magen Avraham 301:53, who states that for a woman, tefillin are always considered to be a burden. (See the Mishnah Berurah 301:158, which cites a differing opinion. do when he finds tefillin in the public domain on the Sabbath?103Halachah 14 states that a person who wears tefillin is not liable - i.e., since tefillin are worn as a garment, he is exempt. Nevertheless, the Rabbis forbade wearing tefillin, because there is no mitzvah to do so on the Sabbath. They did not, however, apply this prohibition in this instance out of reverence for the sacred articles. Were the tefillin to be left there, they might be treated with disrespect.The Sha'agat Aryeh (Responsum 41) questions the Rambam's ruling, because - as reflected by Hilchot Tefillin 4:11 - the Rambam maintains that there is a prohibition from the Torah against putting on tefillin when there is no obligation to do so. He resolves that difficulty by stating that the prohibition applies only when one puts them on at an improper time, with the intent of fulfilling a mitzvah. If that is not one's intent, there is no prohibition. He should wear them in the ordinary fashion, placing the head tefillin on his head and the arm tefillin on his arm, enter a home and remove them there. Afterwards, he should go out, return, put on a second pair, [return to the home,] remove them, and [continue this pattern] until he brings in all [the tefillin].If there were many pairs of tefillin and there was not enough time to bring them in during the time by wearing them as garments, he should remain [watching] them until [after] nightfall, and bring them in on Saturday night.104Since he will not have time to bring them in until after nightfall, it is preferable to stay there and protect them all rather than bring them in one pair at a time. When, by contrast, there is a possibility of bringing them in before nightfall, the Sages were willing to allow him to leave the remainder of the tefillin unattended briefly, so that he could complete the task earlier. In a time of oppressive decrees,105Shabbat 130a relates that the Romans made the wearing of tefillin punishable by death. when one might fear to linger and watch them until the evening because of the gentiles, he should cover them where they are located, leave them, and proceed [on his way].

כ״דהָיָה מִתְיָרֵא לְהַחְשִׁיךְ עֲלֵיהֶן מִפְּנֵי הַלִּסְטִים נוֹטֵל אֶת כֻּלָּן כְּאַחַת וּמוֹלִיכָן פָּחוֹת פָּחוֹת מֵאַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת אוֹ נוֹתְנָן לַחֲבֵרוֹ בְּתוֹךְ אַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת וַחֲבֵרוֹ לַחֲבֵרוֹ עַד שֶׁמַּגִּיעַ לֶחָצֵר הַחִיצוֹנָה. בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים בְּשֶׁהָיוּ בָּהֶן רְצוּעוֹתֵיהֶן וְהֵן מְקֻשָּׁרִין קֶשֶׁר שֶׁל תְּפִלִּין שֶׁוַּדַּאי תְּפִלִּין הֵן אֲבָל אִם לֹא הָיוּ רְצוּעוֹתֵיהֶן מְקֻשָּׁרוֹת אֵינוֹ נִזְקָק לָהֶן:

²⁴Should he be afraid to wait until after nightfall because of thieves, he should take the entire group at once and carry them less than four cubits at a time, or he should give them to a colleague [standing within four cubits], who in turn will give them to another colleague106See Chapter 12, Halachah 17, which explains this leniency applies even with regard to one's personal concerns. Surely, it applies with regard to matters associated with a mitzvah. until they reach the courtyard at the extremity of the city.107There, a person in the courtyard should remove the tefillin from the body of the person who was carrying them while he is still walking outside the courtyard. Thus, one person will have performed the akirah (the removal of the article from its original place) and another the hanachah [the placement of the article (Shulchan Aruch HaRav 301:52)].When does the above apply? When they are found together with their straps that are tied with the knots with which tefillin are tied, since then they are surely tefillin. If, however, their straps are not tied, one should not pay attention to them.108For the possibility exists that they are merely an amulet (Eruvin 97a).The Ra'avad objects to the Rambam's conception of that Talmudic passage and maintains that there is no question concerning the identity of the tefillin, for we do not suspect that a person would make an amulet that resembles tefillin. The difficulty is that if the knots of the tefillin are not tied, it is forbidden to tie them on the Sabbath. Thus, it will be impossible to wear the tefillin on the Sabbath.The difference between these two views is that, according to the Ra'avad, if one finds tefillin without straps, one is obligated to remain watching them until after nightfall. The Rambam, by contrast, would allow a person to leave them.The Maggid Mishneh cites a responsum purported to be written by the Rambam to the scholars of Lunil concerning tzitzit, which indicates that he accepted the Ra'avad's position. When citing the law regarding tefillin, the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 301:42) quotes the Rambam's view. The Magen Avraham 301:53 states that even if the Rambam's view would have applied in previous generations, it is not relevant at present, for amulets are not commonly made in the form of tefillin. Therefore, he suggests following the Ra'avad's ruling.

כ״ההַמּוֹצֵא סֵפֶר תּוֹרָה יוֹשֵׁב וּמְשַׁמְּרוֹ וּמַחְשִׁיךְ עָלָיו. וּבַסַּכָּנָה מַנִּיחוֹ וְהוֹלֵךְ לוֹ. וְאִם הָיוּ גְּשָׁמִים יוֹרְדִין מִתְעַטֵּף בְּעוֹר וְחוֹזֵר וּמְכַסֶּה אוֹתוֹ וְנִכְנָס בּוֹ:

²⁵A person who finds a Torah scroll should linger and watch it until after nightfall.109Since a Torah scroll is not usually worn as a covering, the person is not allowed to cover himself with it under ordinary circumstances. Rather, he must linger and protect the scroll until after nightfall. In a time of danger, he may leave it110Shulchan Aruch HaRav 301:54 states that one should cover the scroll to protect it. It is questionable why the Rambam makes such a statement with regard to tefillin (Halachah 23), but does not do so in this instance. and go on his way. If rain is descending, one should wrap himself in the parchment,111Although a Torah scroll is not usually worn, and indeed, doing so is not respectful to the scroll, this leniency is granted lest the scroll become ruined.The Or Sameach questions why the person cannot carry the scroll less than four cubits at a time, as mentioned in the previous halachah. He explains that the problem is transferring the scroll from the public domain to the home. In Chapter 13, Halachah 9, the Rambam states that one should throw an article that one is carrying from the public domain into a courtyard in an abnormal manner. This would be disrespectful to the Torah scroll. Therefore, it is preferable to wear the scroll. With regard to the propriety of wearing parchment as a garment, the Or Sameach cites the use of similar substances, as mentioned in Halachah 17. See also the suggestion of Shulchan Aruch HaRav mentioned in Note 107. cover it [with one's outer garments], and enter [a home] with it.

כ״ולֹא יֵצֵא הַחַיָּט בְּמַחֲטוֹ בְּיָדוֹ וְלֹא הַלַּבְלָר בְּקֻלְמוֹסוֹ עֶרֶב שַׁבָּת סָמוּךְ לַחֲשֵׁכָה שֶׁמָּא יִשְׁכַּח וְיוֹצִיא. וְחַיָּב אָדָם לְמַשְׁמֵשׁ בְּבִגְדוֹ עֶרֶב שַׁבָּת עִם חֲשֵׁכָה שֶׁמָּא יִהְיֶה שָׁם דָּבָר שָׁכוּחַ וְיֵצֵא בּוֹ בְּשַׁבָּת. מֻתָּר לָצֵאת בִּתְפִלִּין עֶרֶב שַׁבָּת עִם חֲשֵׁכָה הוֹאִיל וְחַיָּב אָדָם לְמַשְׁמֵשׁ בִּתְפִלָּיו בְּכָל עֵת אֵינוֹ שׁוֹכְחָן. שָׁכַח וְיָצָא בָּהֶן לִרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים וְנִזְכַּר שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ תְּפִלִּין בְּרֹאשׁוֹ מְכַסֶּה אֶת רֹאשׁוֹ עַד שֶׁמַּגִּיעַ לְבֵיתוֹ אוֹ לְבֵית הַמִּדְרָשׁ:

²⁶On Friday, shortly before nightfall, a tailor should not go carrying a needle in his hand,112The Maggid Mishneh cites Shabbat 11b, which, as the Rambam states in Halachah 21, rules that a tailor is not liable for carrying his needle stuck into his clothes. Therefore, forbidding a tailor from wearing his needle on Friday afternoon would be a "safeguard to a safeguard," a Rabbinic decree enforced to insure the observance of another Rabbinic decree. Therefore, the prohibition is directed only at carrying a needle in one's hand. nor should a scribe [go out carrying] his pen, lest he forget and transfer it on the Sabbath.A person is obligated to check his clothes on Friday before nightfall, lest he forget something in them and [inadvertently] transfer it on the Sabbath.It is permissible to go out wearing tefillin on Friday shortly before sunset. Since a person is obligated to touch his tefillin at all times,113See Hilchot Tefillin 4:14, which states that the holiness of tefillin surpasses that of the tzitz, the frontlet worn by the High Priest. Hence, they are worthy of such constant attention. there is no possibility that he will forget them. If a person forgets and goes out to the public domain [wearing] tefillin,114Compare to Hilchot Tefillin 4:12, which mentions similar concepts. [when] he remembers the tefillin on his head, he should cover his head115The commentaries state that this is necessary lest others receive the impression that it is permissible to wear tefillin on the Sabbath. until he reaches his home or the house of study.

א׳אָסוּר לְהוֹצִיא מַשָּׂא עַל הַבְּהֵמָה בְּשַׁבָּת שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (שמות כג יב) "לְמַעַן יָנוּחַ שׁוֹרְךָ וַחֲמֹרֶךָ" וְכָל בְּהֶמְתֶּךָ. אֶחָד שׁוֹר וַחֲמוֹר וְאֶחָד כָּל בְּהֵמָה חַיָּה וָעוֹף. וְאִם הוֹצִיא עַל הַבְּהֵמָה אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהוּא מְצֻוֶּה עַל שְׁבִיתָתָהּ אֵינוֹ לוֹקֶה לְפִי שֶׁאִסּוּרוֹ בָּא מִכְּלַל עֲשֵׂה. לְפִיכָךְ הַמְחַמֵּר אַחַר בְּהֶמְתּוֹ בְּשַׁבָּת וְהָיָה עָלֶיהָ מַשּׂאוֹי פָּטוּר:

¹It is forbidden to transfer a burden on an animal on the Sabbath, as [Exodus 23:12] states, "[On the seventh day, you shall cease activity,] and thus your ox and your donkey may rest."1We have translated the verse as it appears in the Torah. The standard printed texts of the Mishneh Torah include several words that are not included in the original verse. This includes [not only] an ox and a donkey, but all animals, beasts, and fowl.2Bava Kama 54b explains that although the verse mentions only an ox and a donkey, the obligation to rest refers to all animals. "The Torah referred to common circumstances" - i.e., since these animals are generally those used for work, they were the ones mentioned specifically.Although a person is commanded to have [his animals] rest, he is not liable [for causing them to work], for the prohibition is derived from a positive commandment.3I.e., the positive commandment of resting on the Sabbath also implies not having one's beasts perform labor. Therefore, a person who directs his animal [while] it is carrying a burden on the Sabbath is not liable.4See Halachah 6 and notes.

ב׳וַהֲלֹא לָאו מְפֹרָשׁ בַּתּוֹרָה שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (שמות כ י) "לֹא תַעֲשֶׂה כָל מְלָאכָה אַתָּה וּבִנְךָ וּבִתֶּךָ וְעַבְדְּךָ וַאֲמָתֶךָ וּבְהֶמְתֶּךָ", שֶׁלֹּא יַחֲרשׁ בָּהּ וְכַיּוֹצֵא בַּחֲרִישָׁה. וְנִמְצָא לָאו שֶׁנִּתָּן לְאַזְהָרַת מִיתַת בֵּית דִּין וְאֵין לוֹקִין עָלָיו:

²Behold, there is [also] an explicit prohibition in the Torah [against working with an animal] as [Exodus 20:10] states: "Do not do any work on the Sabbath. [This includes] you, your son, your daughter, your servant, your maidservant and your beast."5This is the prohibition against working on the Sabbath mentioned in the Ten Commandments.[This means that one should not perform forbidden labors such as] plowing and the like [together with an animal]. Since this is a prohibition which is punishable by death, [its violation does not incur] lashes.6This principle (which has its source in Makkot 13b and which the Rambam quotes in Hilchot Sanhedrin 18:2) generally means that if a person transgresses a prohibition punishable by death, but for certain reasons that punishment cannot be administered, he should not be lashed instead. The rationale is that the only punishment which the Torah prescribed for this transgression is execution. There is no source in the Torah which prescribes a lesser punishment.Nevertheless, within the context of this principle is also the concept that if a certain dimension of a prohibition involves capital punishment, the punishment of lashes is not given to a person who violates another act that is included in this prohibition, but is not punishable by death.To apply these concepts to the case at hand: Working with an animal is the subject of a Torah prohibition. When a person works with an animal, however, he is not punished by lashes as are others who violate Torah prohibitions. Why? Because there are certain instances when working with an animal is punishable by death - i.e., when the activity is performed by a man and the animal together - for example, plowing. Therefore, even when the labor a person has the animal perform does not cause that person to incur the death sentence - for example, leading it while it is carrying a burden - he is not punished by lashes.This is the interpretation of the Maggid Mishneh. The Ramban (in his gloss on Sefer HaMitzvot, General Principle 14), however, interprets the Rambam's words to mean that the Torah's prohibition against working with an animal applies only to activities like plowing when the activity is performed by the man and the beast together. The only prohibition stemming from the Torah against having an animal carry a burden is the prohibition derived from the positive commandment mentioned in Halachah 1. Both these interpretations and their implications are discussed at length by the later commentaries.

ג׳אָסוּר לְיִשְׂרָאֵל לְהַשְׁאִיל אוֹ לְהַשְׂכִּיר בְּהֵמָה גַּסָּה לְנָכְרִי שֶׁלֹּא יַעֲשֶׂה בָּהּ מְלָאכָה בְּשַׁבָּת וַהֲרֵי הוּא מְצֻוֶּה עַל שְׁבִיתַת בְּהֶמְתּוֹ. אָסְרוּ חֲכָמִים לִמְכֹּר בְּהֵמָה גַּסָּה לְנָכְרִי שֶׁמָּא יַשְׁאִיל אוֹ יַשְׂכִּיר. וְאִם מָכַר קוֹנְסִין אוֹתוֹ עַד עֲשָׂרָה בְּדָמֶיהָ וּמַחֲזִירָהּ. וַאֲפִלּוּ שְׁבוּרָה אֵין מוֹכְרִין. וּמֻתָּר לוֹ לִמְכֹּר לָהֶם עַל יְדֵי סַרְסוּר שֶׁהַסַּרְסוּר אֵינוֹ מַשְׂכִּיר וְאֵינוֹ מַשְׁאִיל:

³It is forbidden for a Jew to lend or hire a large animal to a gentile so that the latter may perform work with it on the Sabbath, since [the Jew] is commanded to have his animal rest.7Although the Jew is not making the animal work himself, he is not fulfilling the Torah's command that his animal rest.Our Sages forbade selling a large animal to a gentile,8In his Commentary on the Mishnah (Pesachim 4:3), the Rambam emphasizes that there is no difference in this instance whether the gentile is an idolater or not.Based on the rulings of the Tur, the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 151:4) states that it is customary not to enforce this prohibition in the present age. The Siftei Cohen 151:12 states that the socio-economic conditions under which our people live have changed, and substantial losses would be sustained if the prohibition were observed. Furthermore, the reason for the prohibition is no longer applicable, for it is uncommon for a Jew to lend or hire his animals to a gentile. lest one come to lend or hire [an animal to work on the Sabbath].9The Kessef Mishneh and others note that Avodah Zarah 15a mentions another reason for this prohibition: A Jew who sells an animal to a gentile on Friday afternoon may be required to assist him in training it to follow its new master. This activity may be prolonged past the commencement of the Sabbath. Nevertheless, since this is an infrequent possibility, and the Jew is not performing this task entirely by himself, the Rambam does not mention this matter here. (Significantly, however, he does mention it in his Commentary to the Mishnah, Pesachim, loc. cit.) A person who makes such a sale is penalized and is required to repurchase the animal, even if this requires paying ten times its worth.10Note the parallel in Hilchot Avadim 8:1. Significantly, in that halachah, the Rambam states that if the gentile demands a price greater than this figure, the Jew has no further obligation.Even an animal that is injured11And is unfit for most labor. Since, however, there are tasks that it can perform, the prohibition is not nullified (Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah, loc. cit.). should not be sold [to a gentile]. It is, however, permitted to sell [an animal to a gentile] through a broker,12In his Commentary on the Mishnah (loc. cit.), the Rambam emphasizes that the Jewish owner must not be present while the broker is making the sale. since a broker neither lends nor hires [beasts].

ד׳וּמֻתָּר לִמְכֹּר לָהֶם סוּס שֶׁאֵין הַסּוּס עוֹמֵד אֶלָּא לִרְכִיבַת אָדָם לֹא לְמַשּׂאוֹי וְהַחַי נוֹשֵׂא אֶת עַצְמוֹ. וּכְדֶרֶךְ שֶׁאָסְרוּ לִמְכֹּר לְנָכְרִי כָּךְ אָסְרוּ לִמְכֹּר לְיִשְׂרָאֵל הֶחָשׁוּד לִמְכֹּר לְנָכְרִי. וּמֻתָּר לִמְכֹּר לָהֶם פָּרָה לִשְׁחִיטָה וְשׁוֹחֵט אוֹתָהּ בְּפָנָיו. וְלֹא יִמְכֹּר סְתָם אֲפִלּוּ שׁוֹר שֶׁל פְּטָם שֶׁמָּא יַשְׁהֵא אוֹתוֹ וְיַעֲבֹד בּוֹ:

⁴It is permitted to sell a gentile a horse, since a horse is used only for human transportation13Note the differences between this ruling and the Rambam's statements in his Commentary on the Mishnah (Pesachim 4:3). The Rambam interprets that Mishnah to be referring to a specific type of horse that is used for transporting birds and not humans. Nevertheless, even according to the Commentary on the Mishnah, ordinary horses are primarily used for human transport. and not for transporting burdens.14Note the Beit Yosef (Yoreh De'ah 151), which states that even though it is now customary to perform other tasks with horses, since our Sages did not apply the prohibition to them originally, the scope of their decree need not be extended in the present age. See the notes on the previous halachah. [Hence, there is no forbidden labor involved, because] "a living entity carries itself."15See the explanation of this principle in Chapter 18, Halachah 16.Just as it is forbidden to sell [such an animal] to a gentile, so too is it forbidden to sell it to a Jew who, we suspect, might sell it to a gentile.16Note the parallel in Hilchot Avodat Kochavim 9:8.One may, however, sell [a gentile] a cow for the purpose of slaughter, [provided] he slaughters it in the seller's presence. One should not, however, sell [any animal], even an ox fattened for slaughter, without an explicit condition, lest the purchaser delay and work with it [on the Sabbath in the interim].17The Lechem Mishneh and others question if this prohibition applies when one sells an animal to a gentile butcher as well. Even if the butcher does not slaughter the animal in one's presence, it is clear that he did not purchase it for the sake of labor.

ה׳מָקוֹם שֶׁנָּהֲגוּ לִמְכֹּר לָהֶן בְּהֵמָה דַּקָּה מוֹכְרִין. מָקוֹם שֶׁנָּהֲגוּ שֶׁלֹּא לִמְכֹּר אֵין מוֹכְרִין. וּבְכָל מָקוֹם אֵין מוֹכְרִין לָהֶם חַיָּה גַּסָּה כְּמוֹ שֶׁאֵין מוֹכְרִין לָהֶם בְּהֵמָה גַּסָּה אֶלָּא עַל יְדֵי סַרְסוּר:

⁵In a place where the accepted custom is to sell a small animal18E.g., a sheep or a goat. to gentiles, one may make such a sale. In a place where the accepted custom is not to make such sales, one should not.19The Siftei Cohen (based on Rashi, Avodah Zarah 14b) explains that the reason for the prohibition is our suspicion that the gentile may sodomize the animal, and there is no relation to the Sabbath prohibitions at all.Work is generally not performed with a small animal, nor would it be proper to forbid the sale of a small animal lest one sell a large animal. The sale of a large animal is only a Rabbinic prohibition. Accordingly, instituting another prohibition because of it would be improper, since the Rabbis did not "institute a safeguard for a safeguard."Note, however, the Sefer HaKovetz, which differs and maintains that the prohibition against selling a small animal is a safeguard for the prohibition against selling a larger one. Were this not so, the Rambam would not have mentioned the prohibition against selling a small animal in these halachot.In all places, however, a large non-domesticated animal should not be sold [to a gentile], just as a large domesticated animal should not be sold unless one does so via a broker.

ו׳מִי שֶׁהֶחְשִׁיךְ בַּדֶּרֶךְ וְלֹא הָיָה עִמּוֹ נָכְרִי שֶׁיִּתֵּן לוֹ כִּיסוֹ וְהָיְתָה עִמּוֹ בְּהֵמָה. מַנִּיחַ כִּיסוֹ עָלֶיהָ כְּשֶׁהִיא מְהַלֶּכֶת וּכְשֶׁתִּרְצֶה לַעֲמֹד נוֹטְלוֹ מֵעָלֶיהָ כְּדֵי שֶׁלֹּא תַּעֲמֹד וְהוּא עָלֶיהָ וּכְדֵי שֶׁלֹּא תִּהְיֶה שָׁם לֹא עֲקִירָה וְלֹא הַנָּחָה. וְאָסוּר לוֹ לְהַנְהִיגָהּ וַאֲפִלּוּ בְּקוֹל כָּל זְמַן שֶׁהַכִּיס עָלֶיהָ כְּדֵי שֶׁלֹּא יִהְיֶה מְחַמֵּר בְּשַׁבָּת. וּגְזֵרַת חֲכָמִים הִיא שֶׁלֹּא יַנִּיחַ כִּיסוֹ עַל גַּבֵּי בְּהֵמָה אֶלָּא אִם אֵין עִמּוֹ נָכְרִי:

⁶[The following rules apply when] a person is on a journey and night falls on Friday, [but] he is not accompanied by a gentile to whom he could give his purse:20Although we are forbidden to ask a gentile to perform a forbidden labor on our behalf on the Sabbath, as explained in Chapter 6, leniency is granted in this case. We suspect that if the person was required to abandon his money on the Sabbath, he would disobey the law and carry it himself instead. (See Chapter 6, Halachah 22, and the Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah, Shabbat 24:1.) If he has an animal with him,21Note Shulchan Aruch HaRav 266:4, which states that this ruling applies only when the animal belongs to him, for the verse mentioned at the beginning of the chapter states "and thus your ox and your donkey may rest." When the animal belongs to another individual, it is preferable to have the animal carry the purse. Although we are forbidden to perform a forbidden labor with an animal (Halachah 2), that prohibition can be avoided by making sure the animal does not perform the akirah or the hanachah. There is also a Rabbinic prohibition against working with an animal that belongs to another person. That prohibition is, however, less severe than the prohibition against asking a gentile to perform labor on one's behalf. he should place his purse on [the animal] while it is walking, and when [the animal] desires to stand, he should remove [the purse] from it, so that it will not stand still while carrying [the purse]. [In this manner,] neither the removal of an article from its place, nor placing it down in a new position will have been performed [by the animal].22The Mishnah Berurah 266:7 explains that the prohibition against working with an animal also mentions the term melachah. Accordingly, it is the same activities that a man is prohibited from performing on the Sabbath that are forbidden to be done with an animal.As mentioned previously, the forbidden labor of transferring involves akirah, removing the article from its previous position, and hanachah, placing the article down in a new position. When a person - or an animal - who is carrying an article begins walking, he is considered to have performed an akirah, and when he stops he is considered to have performed a hanachah. (See Chapter 13, Halachah 8.)Accordingly, were a person to place a burden on an animal while it is at rest and remove it from him after the animal has come to rest again, he would be considered as having performed labor with the animal, for the animal will have performed both the akirah and the hanachah.If, however, one follows the course of action suggested by the Rambam, the animal will have performed neither of these acts. Since the article was placed upon the animal after it began to walk, it is not considered to have performed the akirah. Similarly, if the article was removed from the animal before it halted, it is not considered to have performed the hanachah.It is forbidden for him to direct the animal, even with his voice alone, as long as the purse is on it, so that he will not be considered to be directing his animal on the Sabbath.23The Rashba and others question the Rambam's ruling in this instance, arguing that since the animal does not perform the akirah and the hanachah (as explained above), what difference does it make whether one leads the animal or not? There is no possibility of the animal's performing a forbidden labor.The Rambam, however, maintains that leading an animal carrying a burden is also forbidden. Otherwise, the license granted a person would be too extensive (Maggid Mishneh). Our Sages decreed24Shabbat 17b. that one should not place a purse on an animal on the Sabbath unless one is not accompanied by a gentile.25As the Rambam states in Chapter 6, Halachah 16, we are not commanded to see that a gentile rests on the Sabbath, while we do have such an obligation with regard to our animals.(See also Shulchan Aruch HaRav 266:3 and the Mishnah Berurah 266:6, which state that the above rules also apply when a person is accompanied by a gentile whom he does not trust.)

ז׳הָיָה עִמּוֹ חֵרֵשׁ שׁוֹטֶה וְקָטָן מַנִּיחַ כִּיסוֹ עַל הַחֲמוֹר וְאֵינוֹ נוֹתְנוֹ לְאֶחָד מֵהֶן מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהֵן אָדָם מִיִּשְׂרָאֵל. הָיָה עִמּוֹ חֵרֵשׁ וְשׁוֹטֶה וְאֵין עִמּוֹ בְּהֵמָה נוֹתְנוֹ לְשׁוֹטֶה. שׁוֹטֶה וְקָטָן נוֹתְנוֹ לְשׁוֹטֶה. חֵרֵשׁ וְקָטָן נוֹתְנוֹ לְאֵי זֶה מֵהֶן שֶׁיִּרְצֶה. לֹא הָיְתָה עִמּוֹ בְּהֵמָה וְלֹא נָכְרִי וְלֹא אֶחָד מִכָּל אֵלּוּ מְהַלֵּךְ בּוֹ פָּחוֹת פָּחוֹת מֵאַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת. וַאֲפִלּוּ מְצִיאָה שֶׁבָּאָה לְיָדוֹ מְהַלֵּךְ בָּהּ פָּחוֹת פָּחוֹת מֵאַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת. אֲבָל קֹדֶם שֶׁתָּבוֹא לְיָדוֹ אִם יָכוֹל לְהַחְשִׁיךְ עָלֶיהָ מַחְשִׁיךְ וְאִם לָאו מוֹלִיכָהּ פָּחוֹת פָּחוֹת מֵאַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת:

⁷Although the person is also accompanied by a deaf mute, a mentally incompetent individual, and a minor26These three types of individuals are often mentioned together in the Talmudic literature. They are all considered to be lacking the intellectual capacity to control their conduct. Hence, they are not obligated to observe the mitzvot., he should place his purse on the donkey rather than give to one of these individuals, for they are humans and are members of the Jewish people.27Rashi (Shabbat 153a) adds that if one of these individuals were allowed to carry the purse, one might err and think that an ordinary Jew is also allowed to carry.If he is accompanied by a deaf-mute and a mentally incompetent individual, and does not have an animal with him, he should give it to the mentally incompetent individual.28The deaf-mute has a minimal amount of understanding, and thus, were he to carry an article on the Sabbath, the potential for making an error and thinking that all are allowed to carry is greater (ibid.). If [he is accompanied by] a mentally incompetent individual and a minor, he should give it29The Rashba, the Ramban, Rav Moshe Cohen, and others differ with the Rambam and maintain that one should should give the individual the purse while he is walking, and should remove the purse from him before he stands (as explained in the previous halachah), so that the individual carrying the purse will perform neither the akirah nor the hanachah. They maintain that although a mentally incompetent individual (and similarly, the others mentioned) are not obligated to observe the mitzvot, it is forbidden to "feed him non-kosher food with one's hands." (See Hilchot Ma'achalot Asurot 17:27.) Similarly, in this instance it is forbidden to give these individuals an article and tell them to carry it. See also Chapter 24, Halachah 11, and notes.This opinion is quoted by the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 266:6) and accepted by the later authorities. There is a difference of opinion among the Rabbis whether the above law applies if one gives the article to one of these individuals before the commencement of the Sabbath. On the one hand, it is obvious that one's intent is to have the individual carry the article on the Sabbath. Nevertheless, since one gives the article to him before the commencement of the Sabbath, one is not considered to be "feeding him non-kosher food with one's hands." (See the glosses of the Ramah and the Magen Avraham on that law.) to the mentally incompetent individual.30Since the child will ultimately become obligated to perform mitzvot, it is preferable that he not violate them in his childhood. If [he is accompanied by] a deaf-mute and a minor, he may give it to whomever he desires.31Shabbat 153b explains that on the one hand, it is preferable to give it to the child, because when the deaf-mute carries, the impression will be created that an adult may carry on the Sabbath. Conversely, however, there is a disadvantage in giving it to the child, for he will ultimately mature and become obligated to observe the mitzvot.The Be'ur Halachah 266 emphasizes that when the minor is one's own son, it is definitely preferable to give the purse to the deaf-mute, for a person is obligated to train his children in the observance of the mitzvot.If he does not have an animal with him, nor is he accompanied by one of these individuals, he should walk [carrying his purse] less than four cubits [at a time].32As mentioned in Chapter 12, Halachot 15 and 19, a person is permitted to carry within a space of four cubits. Thus, each time he stops, the four cubits in which he is allowed to carry become redefined, and in this manner he can carry the article several miles on the Sabbath. (See also Chapter 13, Halachah 10, and Chapter 6, Halachah 22.)It must be emphasized that transferring the article less than four cubits at a time is permitted only when carrying the article in the public domain, but not with regard to transferring the article into the private domain. This must be accomplished by throwing the article in an irregular manner (Shulchan Aruch HaRav 266:12; Mishnah Berurah 266:17).Significantly, in contrast to Chapter 13, Halachah 9, the Rambam does not say that the person should run without stopping until he arrives home. It is possible to differentiate between the two instances by explaining that the present halachah refers to an instance when the person had stopped after the commencement of the Sabbath, while the halachah cited refers to an instance when the person had continued walking. Even if he has acquired a lost article,33The leniencies granted to allow a person to maintain possession of his own property do not apply to a lost object that he discovered, since he will not suffer a loss by leaving it. Nevertheless, once a person has already taken possession of the lost object, it is considered to be his own property. he may [move it] by walking less than four cubits [at a time].[Different rules, however, apply to a lost article that] he has not acquired: If he can linger and wait until nightfall, he should. If not,34I.e., if there is a danger, because of thieves or the like. he may [carry it] by walking less than four cubits [at a time].35According to the Rambam, as stated in Chapter 6, Halachah 22, there is no prohibition against carrying an article less than four cubits at a time. Most authorities, however, differ with him on this issue and maintain that this is a leniency that is permitted only in rare instances. Hence, in the case of a lost article when a person will not suffer a loss, the leniency is not granted. It is the opinion of these authorities that is quoted in the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 266:7).

ח׳מֻתָּר לִמְשֹׁךְ אֶת הַבְּהֵמָה בְּמֶתֶג וָרֶסֶן שֶׁלָּהּ לִרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים וְהוּא שֶׁתִּהְיֶה רְאוּיָה לְאוֹתוֹ הָרֶסֶן. כְּגוֹן שִׁיר לְסוּס וְאַפְסָר לְגָמָל וַחֲטָם לְנָאקָה וְסוּגַר לְכֶלֶב. אֲבָל אִם הוֹצִיא בְּהֵמָה בְּמֶתֶג שֶׁאֵין מִשְׁתַּמֶּרֶת בּוֹ כְּגוֹן שֶׁקָּשַׁר חֶבֶל בְּפִי הַסּוּס אוֹ בְּמֶתֶג שֶׁאֵינָהּ צְרִיכָה לוֹ אֶלָּא מִשְׁתַּמֶּרֶת בְּפָחוֹת מִמֶּנּוּ. כְּגוֹן שֶׁהוֹצִיא חֲמוֹר בְּשִׁיר שֶׁל סוּס אוֹ חָתוּל בְּסוּגַר הֲרֵי זֶה מַשּׂאוֹי. שֶׁכָּל שְׁמִירָה מְעֻלָּה אוֹ שְׁמִירָה פְּחוּתָה מַשּׂאוֹי הוּא לָהּ:

⁸It is permitted to lead an animal in the public domain with its reins and its bridle,36The bridle and reins are not considered muktzeh, because the person had the intent of using them before the Sabbath. One must, however, be careful not to lean on the animal when putting the bridle and the reins on it, for it is forbidden to make use of a live animal (Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 305:1 and commentaries). provided the bridle and reins are appropriate for it37This halachah revolves around the following principle: A restraint that is necessary to control an animal is not considered to be a burden and may be borne by the animal on the Sabbath. - for example, a horse with a neck-ring, a camel with a rope tied to its mouth, a female camel with an iron bit,38In his Commentary on the Mishnah (Shabbat 5:1), the Rambam writes that female camels are more powerful than males and need stronger restraints. The rope used to tie a male camel is, however, apparently different from that mentioned later in the halachah in regard to a horse. and a dog with a muzzle.If, however, one took out an animal with a bridle that is insufficient - e.g., one tied a rope in the mouth of a horse - or with a bridle that is excessive, for it would be controlled with a lesser one, - for example one took out a donkey with a horse's neck-ring, or a cat with a muzzle, it is considered to be a burden.39A person who leads an animal into the public domain with such a restraint is thus considered as having violated the prohibition against having an animal work on the Sabbath. For any excessive or insufficient restraint is considered to be a burden.40When quoting this law, the Shulchan Aruch (loc. cit.) mentions "a very excessive restraint" - i.e., we are not expected to measure exactly the strength of the animal and the restraint. As long as the restraint is more or less appropriate for the animal, it is not considered to be a burden.

ט׳לֹא יִקְשֹׁר גְּמַלִּים זֶה בָּזֶה וְיִמְשֹׁךְ אֲפִלּוּ הָיוּ קְשׁוּרִין מֵעֶרֶב שַׁבָּת אֵינָן נִמְשָׁכִין בְּשַׁבָּת. אֲבָל מַכְנִיס הוּא חֲבָלִים לְתוֹךְ יָדוֹ וְהוּא שֶׁלֹּא יֵצֵא חֶבֶל מִתּוֹךְ יָדוֹ טֶפַח. וְצָרִיךְ שֶׁיִּהְיֶה הַחֶבֶל שֶׁמִּפִּי הַבְּהֵמָה עַד יָדוֹ גָּבוֹהַּ מִן הָאָרֶץ טֶפַח אוֹ יוֹתֵר. וּמִפְּנֵי מָה לֹא יִמְשֹׁךְ הַגְּמַלִּים הַקְּשׁוּרִים זֶה בָּזֶה מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא נִרְאֶה כְּמִי שֶׁמּוֹלִיכָן לְשׁוּק שֶׁמּוֹכְרִין בּוֹ הַבְּהֵמוֹת אוֹ שֶׁמְּשַׂחֲקִין בָּהֶן שָׁם. וּמִפְּנֵי זֶה לֹא תֵּצֵא בְּהֵמָה בְּזוֹג שֶׁבְּצַוָּארָהּ וַאֲפִלּוּ הָיָה פָּקוּק שֶׁאֵין לוֹ קוֹל:

⁹A person should not tie camels together and lead them. [Moreover,] even when they were tied together on Friday, he should not lead them on the Sabbath. One may, however, gather the ropes [of many camels] in one's hand,41The Tur (Orach Chayim 305) appears to differ and to allow one to lead merely one camel at a time. provided none of the ropes extends more than a handbreadth outside one's hand42If the rope extends longer, it might appear that one is carrying the rope and not using it as a restraint for the animal (Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah, Shabbat 5:3). and the rope leading from [each] camel's mouth to one's hand is at least a handbreadth above the earth.43If the rope hangs lower, it does not appear to be a restraint for the animal, but rather an unnecessary burden (Rashi, Shabbat 54b).Why is one prohibited from leading camels that are tied to each other? Because it appears as if he is leading them to the marketplace where animals are sold or used for sport.44Shabbat 54a states that a person leading a group of camels appears as if he is going to a חנגא. The Rambam, based on the commentary of Rabbenu Chanan'el, interprets that term as having both the meanings mentioned above. It appears to refer to a country-fair that was an occasion for both commerce and celebration for the populace at large. For this reason, a person should not go out [leading] an animal wearing a bell around its neck, even if its clapper is plugged [so that] it does not produce a sound.45A bell will make the animal look more attractive (Rashi, Shabbat 54b). Alternatively, a bell's sound will invite the attention of prospective customers. An onlooker may not realize that the bell has been plugged (Tiferet Yisrael, Shabbat 5:4).

י׳לֹא תֵּצֵא בְּהֵמָה בְּזוּג שֶׁבִּכְסוּתָהּ וְלֹא בְּחוֹתָם שֶׁבְּצַוָּארָהּ וְלֹא בְּחוֹתָם שֶׁבִּכְסוּתָהּ וְלֹא בִּרְצוּעָה שֶׁבְּרַגְלָהּ וְלֹא בְּסֻלָּם שֶׁבְּצַוָּארָהּ. וְאֵין חֲמוֹר יוֹצֵא בְּמַרְדַּעַת אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן הָיְתָה קְשׁוּרָה לוֹ מֵעֶרֶב שַׁבָּת. וְלֹא יֵצֵא גָּמָל בַּמְּטוּטֶלֶת הַתְּלוּיָה לוֹ בְּדַבַּשְׁתּוֹ אוֹ בִּזְנָבוֹ אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן הָיְתָה קְשׁוּרָה בִּזְנָבוֹ וְחוֹטַרְתּוֹ. וְלֹא יֵצֵא הַגָּמָל עֲקוּד יָד וְלֹא עֲקוּד רֶגֶל וְכֵן שְׁאָר כָּל הַבְּהֵמוֹת:

¹⁰An animal should not go out with a bell [attached to] its coverings,46Rashi and Tosafot (Shabbat 58a) states that the reason stated in the previous halachah - that one appears to be taking them to a fair - applies in this instance as well. a seal47Identifying it as belonging to its master. [attached to] its neck, a seal [attached to] its coverings,48This prohibition applies even if the seal is woven into the animal's covering (Shulchan Aruch HaRav 305:15; Mishnah Berurah 305:45).From the context here, it would appear that the reason for the prohibition is that the seal is considered to be an unnecessary burden. Note, however, Shulchan Aruch HaRav (loc. cit.), which states that the prohibition was instituted lest the seal fall and the owner pick it up and carry it. a strap on its foot,49In his Commentary on the Mishnah (Shabbat 5:4, based on Shabbat 54b), the Rambam interprets this as referring to a leather strap tied around the hoof of an animal that has been wounded. or a ladder on its neck.50This refers to wooden restraint placed on the animal's neck to prevent it from being able to turn its head backwards. Such a restraint would be placed on an animal to deter it from chewing on a wound on its back (ibid.).A donkey may not go out with a saddle-cloth unless it is tied to it on Friday.51Shabbat 53a states that a donkey is always cold, and hence, a saddle-cloth is necessary, even in the summer, to keep it warm. Accordingly, the saddle-cloth is considered to be a garment and not a burden.The saddlecloth must be tied to the animal, lest it fall and its owner carry it on the Sabbath. It must be tied before the Sabbath, because there is no way that it can be tied on the Sabbath itself without leaning on the animal, which is a forbidden act. Our Sages prohibited a person who violated their decree and tied the saddle-cloth on the Sabbath from taking out his donkey on that day (Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah, Shabbat 5:2).Other commentaries explain that if the saddle-cloth was not tied to the animal on Friday, we can assume that it does not suffer from cold so seriously. Hence, it is forbidden for it to wear the saddle-cloth on the Sabbath. A camel should not go out with a patch attached to its hump or its tail52In his Commentary on the Mishnah (loc. cit.:3), the Rambam states that the patch is used as a sign of identification or for superstitious reasons. Note Rashi (Shabbat 54a), who translates מטוטלת as a "small cushion" rather than as a patch. unless it is tied to both its hump and its tail.53Our translation is based on Rav Kapach's commentary.A camel should not go out with its foreleg tied to its hind leg54Our translation is based on the Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah (loc. cit.).or its foreleg bound.55I.e., one of its back feet to one of its front legs, so that it can walk on only three legs (ibid.). In both these instances, the animal is able to walk, but cannot walk fast. The same applies to all other animals.

י״אאֵין הַתַּרְנְגוֹלִים יוֹצְאִין בְּחוּטִין וְלֹא בָּרְצוּעוֹת שֶׁבְּרַגְלֵיהֶם. וְאֵין הַכְּבָשִׂין יוֹצְאִין בָּעֲגָלָה שֶׁתַּחַת אַלְיָה שֶׁלָּהֶן. וְאֵין הַכְּבָשׂוֹת יוֹצְאוֹת בָּעֵצִים שֶׁמַּנִּיחִים לָהֶן בְּחָטְמָן כְּדֵי שֶׁיִּתְעַטְּשׁוּ וְיִפְּלוּ הַתּוֹלָעִין שֶׁבְּמֹחָן. וְאֵין הָעֵגֶל יוֹצֵא בְּעל קָטָן שֶׁמַּנִּיחִין לוֹ עַל צַוָּארוֹ כְּדֵי שֶׁיִּכָּנַע וְיִהְיֶה נוֹחַ לַחֲרִישָׁה. וְלֹא תֵּצֵא בְּהֵמָה בִּשְׂבָכָה שֶׁמַּנִּיחִין לָהּ בְּפִיהָ כְּדֵי שֶׁלֹּא תִּשֹּׁךְ אוֹ שֶׁלֹּא תֹּאכַל. לֹא תֵּצֵא הַפָּרָה בְּעוֹר הַקּוּפָּר שֶׁמַּנִּיחִין לָהּ עַל דַּדֶּיהָ כְּדֵי שֶׁלֹּא יִינַק מִמֶּנָּה הַשֶּׁרֶץ כְּשֶׁהִיא יְשֵׁנָה. וְלֹא תֵּצֵא בָּרְצוּעָה שֶׁבֵּין קַרְנֶיהָ בֵּין לְנוֹי בֵּין לְשַׁמֵּר. עֵז שֶׁחָקַק לָהּ בְּקַרְנֶיהָ יוֹצְאָה בְּאַפְסָר הַקָּשׁוּר בְּחֶקֶק בְּשַׁבָּת. וְאִם תְּחָבוֹ בִּזְקָנָהּ אָסוּר שֶׁמָּא תְּנַתְּחֶנּוּ וִיבִיאֶנּוּ בְּיָדוֹ בִּרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים. וְכֵן כָּל כַּיּוֹצֵא בָּזֶה:

¹¹Chickens56In his Commentary on the Mishnah (Shabbat 5:4), the Rambam emphasizes that this applies to both male and female chickens. may not go out with cords,57Attached to their feet for the purpose of identification (ibid., based on Shabbat 54b). nor with straps on their feet.58The Rambam (loc. cit.) interprets this as referring to straps that hang loosely from a chicken's feet. He does not explain their purpose. Others (based on Shabbat 54b) explain that these straps served as a restraint. Rams may not go out with a small wagon under their fat tail.59The Rambam (loc. cit.) explains that this refers to a unique species of rams. When they are fattened, all the fat collects in the fat tail, which swells in size. Because of its size, the ram is unable to lift it easily. Therefore, a small wagon is constructed and attached to them to support their tails and prevent them from dragging on the ground and becoming bruised and cut. The Rambam states that he was familiar with such a species of rams. Ewes may not go out with [chips of] wood that are placed in their nostrils so that they sneeze and dislodge the worms in their brains.60The Rambam (ibid.) states that this refers to chips from the yachnun tree. Based on Shabbat 54b, he explains that these chips were not necessary for rams. Since they butt each other frequently, this would dislodge the worms from their heads.A calf may not go out with a small yoke [that is placed] on its neck to break [its nature] and accustom it [to bearing a yoke so that later it will wear a larger yoke for] plowing. An animal may not go out with a muzzle placed in its mouth so that it will neither bite nor eat. A cow may not go out with a hedgehog skin on its teats so that crawling animals61Significantly, Shabbat 54b singles out the species yalei, which Tosafot (based on Bava Batra 4a) identifies as the hedgehog itself. The Biblical name for this species anaka (Leviticus 11:30 resembles the word yenikah, "sucking," and refers to this species' tendency to suck milk. will not suck from it when it sleeps,62The sharp prickles of the hedgehog skin will annoy the crawling animals and prevent them from sucking the cow's milk (Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah, loc. cit., based on Shabbat 54b). nor may it go out with a strap between its horns, regardless of whether it is placed there as an ornament or as a restraint.63In his Commentary on the Mishnah [loc. cit. (based on Shabbat, loc. cit.), the Rambam relates that Rabbi Elazar ben Azaryah had a neighbor who let his cow go out with a strap between its horns. Rabbi Elazar did not rebuke him for this act, and hence the responsibility for this transgression was considered his. The Jerusalem Talmud (Shabbat 5:4) relates that as penance, Rabbi Elazar fasted until his teeth became black.When a goat's horns are pierced, it may go out with a rope tied to its horns on the Sabbath. If the rope is tied to [the goat's] beard, it is forbidden, lest it tear off and the person carry it in his hands in the public domain. The same applies in all similar situations.

י״בהַזְּכָרִים יוֹצְאִים בָּעוֹר הַקָּשׁוּר לָהֶן עַל זַכְרוּתָן כְּדֵי שֶׁלֹּא יַעֲלוּ עַל הַנְּקֵבוֹת. וּבָעוֹר הַקָּשׁוּר לָהֶם עַל לִבֵּיהֶם כְּדֵי שֶׁלֹּא יִפְּלוּ עֲלֵיהֶם זְאֵבִים. וּבְמַטְלָנִיּוֹת הַמְרֻקָּמוֹת שֶׁמְּיַפִּין אוֹתָן בָּהֶן. וְהָרְחֵלוֹת יוֹצְאוֹת וְאַלְיָה שֶׁלָּהֶן קְשׁוּרָה לְמַעְלָה עַל גַּבָּן כְּדֵי שֶׁיַּעֲלוּ עֲלֵיהֶן הַזְּכָרִים. אוֹ קְשׁוּרָה לְמַטָּה כְּדֵי שֶׁלֹּא יַעֲלוּ עֲלֵיהֶם הַזְּכָרִים. וְיוֹצְאוֹת מְלֻפָּפוֹת בְּמַטְלָנִיּוֹת כְּדֵי שֶׁיִּהְיֶה הַצֶּמֶר שֶׁלָּהֶן נָקִי. הָעִזִּים יוֹצְאוֹת וְדַדֵּיהֶן קְשׁוּרוֹת כְּדֵי שֶׁיִּיבַשׁ מֵהֶן הֶחָלָב. אֲבָל אִם קְשָׁרָן כְּדֵי שֶׁלֹּא יֵצֵא הֶחָלָב עַד שֶׁיַּחֲלֹב אוֹתוֹ לָעֶרֶב הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ לֹא יֵצְאוּ:

¹²Rams may go out with a wide strap tied against their genitals so that they will not copulate with females, with a hard piece of leather strapped over their hearts so that they will not be attacked by wolves,64Shabbat 53b offers both these interpretations for the word לבובין in the Mishnah, Shabbat 5:2. The Rambam interprets them as not being mutually exclusive and hence cites both of them as halachah. See also the following note. and with an embroidered cloth that is placed on them to make them more attractive.65Shabbat (loc. cit.) also offers this as an interpretation of the term לבובין. The Ra'avad, however, objects to this particular interpretation, explaining that, as obvious from the ruling in the previous halachah regarding a strap tied between a cow's horns, any article placed on an animal for the purpose of ornamentation is considered to be a burden and forbidden.The Maggid Mishneh (in his notes on the following halachah) offers an explanation that can resolve this difficulty. An ornament that an animal wears during the week is also permitted on the Sabbath. The ornaments that are forbidden are those that are placed on the animal for the Sabbath day alone.Note also an original interpretation offered by the Or Sameach, which explains that ornamentation that makes an animal attractive in the eyes of humans is forbidden. The cloth mentioned in this halachah is, by contrast, intended to make the animal attractive in the eyes of the other animals. Some support for this thesis can be derived from comparison to the other articles mentioned in this halachah.Ewes may go out with their fat tail tied to their backs, [exposing them] so that rams will copulate with them, or tied downward so that rams will not copulate with them. They may go out covered with a cloth so that their wool will remain clean.66In his Commentary on the Mishnah (Shabbat 5:2), the Rambam states that these coverings are placed over ewes and not over rams, because ewes' wool is softer than that of rams.Goats may go out with their teats tied so that their milk will dry up.67This may be done to change the goats' hormonal balance so that they will conceive faster. They should not go out, however, [with their teats tied] so that no milk will flow out until they are milked in the evening.68Rabbenu Yonah explains that the goats' teats were tied for this purpose on the Sabbath and not during the week. During the week, they would be milked in the morning and in the evening, and there was little chance of sufficient pressure building up to cause the milk to ooze out. On the Sabbath, by contrast, they could not be milked from sunset until after nightfall on the next day, and the possibility existed that extra milk would ooze out.The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 305:6) follows the interpretation of Rashi, who explains that these ties are not bound tightly and the possibility exists that they will fall and that the owner will carry them in the public domain.

י״גאֵין חֲמוֹר יוֹצֵא בְּאֻכָּף אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁקָּשׁוּר מֵעֶרֶב שַׁבָּת. וְלֹא יֵצֵא הַסּוּס בִּזְנַב שׁוּעָל וְלֹא בִּזְהוֹרִית שֶׁבֵּין עֵינָיו. וְלֹא תֵּצֵא בְּהֵמָה בִּקְרַסְטָל שֶׁבְּפִיהָ וְלֹא בְּסַנְדָּל שֶׁבְּרַגְלָהּ וְלֹא בְּקָמֵעַ שֶׁאֵינוֹ מֻמְחֶה לִבְהֵמָה. אֲבָל יוֹצְאָה הִיא בְּאֶגֶד שֶׁעַל גַּב הַמַּכָּה וּבְקַשְׂקַשִּׂים שֶׁעַל גַּבֵּי הַשֶּׁבֶר. וּבְשִׁלְיָה הַמְדֻלְדֶּלֶת בָּהּ. וּפוֹקֵק לָהּ זוֹג שֶׁבְּצַוָּארָהּ וּמְטַיֶּלֶת בּוֹ בֶּחָצֵר. וְנוֹתֵן לוֹ מַרְדַּעַת עַל הַחֲמוֹר בְּשַׁבָּת וּמְטַיֵּל בֶּחָצֵר. אֲבָל אֵין תּוֹלִין לָהּ קְרַסְטָל בְּפִיהָ בְּשַׁבָּת:

¹³A donkey should not go out [wearing] a saddle even when it is tied upon it on Friday.69Although a donkey may go out wearing a saddlecloth, as stated in Halachah 10, a saddle itself is considered a burden. A horse may not go out wearing a fox's tail70Rashi (Shabbat 53a) explains that this was used as a talisman to ward off the evil eye. or with a scarlet thread between its eyes.71Because it is an unnecessary ornament and therefore considered a burden. See the notes on the previous halachah.An animal should not go out with a feeding bag [attached] to its mouth, nor with metal shoes,72Note the Mishnah Berurah 305:41, which states that this restriction does not apply to iron horseshoes that are permanently affixed to the animal's feet. nor with an amulet that has not proven its efficacy for an animal.73Even if an amulet has proven its efficacy for a human, as long as it has not proven its efficacy for an animal, we are in doubt of its usefulness. Shulchan Aruch HaRav 305:21 states that a human being has angels and spiritual forces that will assist his recovery, and an animal lacks these. Therefore, the amulet used by a human need not be as powerful. An animal may, however, go out with a bandage placed on a wound,74Chapter 19, Halachah 13 grants a person license to go out with a bandage on a wound. The same concept applies regarding an animal. with plates placed on a broken bone,75So that it will set in place and heal (Maggid Mishneh). or with a placenta that is hanging from it.We may plug up a bell hanging around its neck76The bell must be plugged, since it is forbidden to ring bells on the Sabbath as stated in Chapter 23, Halachah 4. and allow [an animal] to stroll with it in a courtyard.77In this and the following instance, the leniency is granted in a courtyard, but not in the public domain. Similarly, one may place78The saddle cloth may not be tied, since by doing so one would be making use of an animal. (See the Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 305:8 and the notes on Halachah 10.) a saddlecloth on a donkey79This leniency applies only to a donkey that chronically suffers from cold, as explained in the notes on Halachah 10, and not to a horse or other similar species (Shulchan Aruch, loc. cit.). and allow it to stroll in a courtyard. One may not, however, attach a feeding bag to [an animal] on the Sabbath [even when it will not go beyond a courtyard].80The Shulchan Aruch (loc. cit.:10) mentions that, in a courtyard, a feeding bag may be attached to calves and ponies which do not have long necks and find it uncomfortable to eat by themselves.

י״דכְּשֵׁם שֶׁאָדָם מְצֻוֶּה עַל שְׁבִיתַת בְּהֶמְתּוֹ בְּשַׁבָּת כָּךְ הוּא מְצֻוֶּה עַל שְׁבִיתַת עַבְדּוֹ וַאֲמָתוֹ וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהֵן בְּנֵי דַּעַת וּלְדַעַת עַצְמָן עוֹשִׂין מִצְוָה עָלֵינוּ לְשָׁמְרָן וּלְמָנְעָן מֵעֲשִׂיַּת מְלָאכָה בְּשַׁבָּת שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (שמות כג יב) "לְמַעַן יָנוּחַ שׁוֹרְךָ וַחֲמֹרֶךָ וְיִנָּפֵשׁ בֶּן אֲמָתְךָ וְהַגֵּר". עֶבֶד וְאָמָה שֶׁאָנוּ מְצֻוִּין עַל שְׁבִיתָתָן הֵם עֲבָדִים שֶׁמָּלוּ וְטָבְלוּ לְשֵׁם עַבְדוּת וְקִבְּלוּ מִצְוֹת שֶׁהָעֲבָדִים חַיָּבִין בָּהֶן. אֲבָל עֲבָדִים שֶׁלֹּא מָלוּ וְלֹא טָבְלוּ אֶלָּא קִבְּלוּ עֲלֵיהֶן שֶׁבַע מִצְוֹת שֶׁנִּצְטַוּוּ בְּנֵי נֹחַ בִּלְבַד הֲרֵי הֵן כְּגֵר תּוֹשָׁב וּמֻתָּרִין לַעֲשׂוֹת מְלָאכָה בְּשַׁבָּת לְעַצְמָן בְּפַרְהֶסְיָא כְּיִשְׂרָאֵל בְּחל. וְאֵין מְקַבְּלִין גֵּר תּוֹשָׁב אֶלָּא בִּזְמַן שֶׁהַיּוֹבֵל נוֹהֵג. הוֹאִיל וְגֵר תּוֹשָׁב עוֹשֶׂה מְלָאכָה לְעַצְמוֹ בְּשַׁבָּת וְגֵר צֶדֶק הֲרֵי הוּא כְּיִשְׂרָאֵל לְכָל דָּבָר. בְּמִי נֶאֱמַר וְיִנָּפֵשׁ בֶּן אֲמָתְךָ וְהַגֵּר. זֶה גֵּר תּוֹשָׁב שֶׁהוּא לְקִיטוֹ וּשְׂכִירוֹ שֶׁל יִשְׂרָאֵל כְּמוֹ בֶּן אֲמָתוֹ. שֶׁלֹּא יַעֲשֶׂה מְלָאכָה לְיִשְׂרָאֵל רַבּוֹ בְּשַׁבָּת אֲבָל לְעַצְמוֹ עוֹשֶׂה. וַאֲפִלּוּ הָיָה הַגֵּר זֶה עַבְדּוֹ הֲרֵי זֶה עוֹשֶׂה לְעַצְמוֹ:

¹⁴Just as a person is commanded that his animals rest on the Sabbath, so too, he is commanded that his servants and maidservants rest. Although they have the power of thought, and act according to their own volition, [their master] is obligated to watch over them and prevent them from performing [forbidden] labor on the Sabbath, as [Exodus 23:12] states: "Thus your ox and your donkey may rest, and the son of your maidservant and the foreigner may find repose."81The Ra'avad objects to the Rambam's decision, explaining that since the servants are themselves obligated to observe the prohibition against working on the Sabbath, of what purpose is the prohibition imposed on their master? The Maggid Mishneh and Radbaz (Vol. V, Responsum 1525) explain that the servants may be lax in their observance. Therefore, an additional command is given to their master.The servants and maidservants whom we are commanded to have rest [on the Sabbath] are servants that have been circumcised and have immersed themselves [in the mikveh], so that they be granted the status of servants who have accepted the mitzvot that servants are obligated to observe.82In Hilchot Issurei Bi'ah 14;9, the Rambam explains that a Cana'anite servant goes through a process similar to that of conversion when purchased by a Jewish master. This process includes circumcision, immersion in the mikveh, and the acceptance of mitzvot. Once this process is completed, the servant is bound to observe all the mitzvot that are incumbent upon Jewish women. By contrast, servants who have not been circumcised and have not immersed themselves, but have merely accepted [the observance of] the seven [universal] laws commanded to the descendants of Noach,83These seven universal laws include the prohibitions against the worship of false gods, cursing God, killing, stealing, incest and adultery, eating a limb torn from a living animal and the obligation to set up courts of law to judge civil matters. The Rambam explains these laws in Hilchot Melachim, Chapter 9 and 10.A servant may temporarily refuse to accept the mitzvot incumbent upon Jewish servants. In this instance, he does not undergo the process of circumcision and immersion and is given twelve months to decide whether to accept Jewish observance or not. If he refuses, he must be sold (Hilchot Avadim 8:12).In the interim, this servant must accept the observance of these seven universal laws. If not, he should be killed immediately (see Hilchot Avadim 1:6 and commentaries). are considered equivalent to "resident aliens" and are permitted to perform [forbidden] labors for their own sake84But not for the sake of a Jew. In Chapter 6, it was explained that there is a Rabbinic prohibition preventing a Jew from instructing a gentile to perform a forbidden labor on his behalf. This halachah emphasizes that when a gentile is the Jew's servant, the Jew is violating a positive commandment of the Torah itself by having the gentile work for him on the Sabbath. See notes 87 and 88 below. in public as the Jews may during the week. [The status of] a resident alien is granted only in the era when the Jubilee year is observed.85As explained in Hilchot Shemitah V'Yovel 10:9, there are many mitzvot whose observance is dependent on the observance of the yovel, the Jubilee year. The observance of the Jubilee year itself is dependent on the proportion of the Jewish people living in Eretz Yisrael. Only when the majority of our people live in the holy land is this mitzvah observed.[One might ask:] Since a resident alien may perform [forbidden] labors on his own behalf on the Sabbath, and a convert is considered equivalent to a native-born Jew in all matters, who is referred to with [the term הגר] in the phrase, "and the son of your maidservant and the foreigner [הגר] may find repose"?86The intent of this question is not directly obvious in a translated text. The Hebrew word גר has two meanings in Halachic terminology: a convert - גר צדק - and a resident alien - גר תושב. Since, as the Rambam indicates, the verse does not appear to refer to either of these individuals, what is the intent of the word גר in that verse?This refers to a resident alien who is an employee of a Jew, like "the son of [his] maidservant." Such a resident alien may not perform [forbidden] labors on behalf of his Jewish master on the Sabbath.87The Maggid Mishneh states that this positive mitzvah prohibits not only one's servant or one's hired hand, but any gentile who has accepted the observance of these seven universal laws, from working on one's behalf on the Sabbath. For as soon as the gentile agrees to perform the forbidden labor on behalf of a Jew, he is considered as the Jew's hired hand.The question may arise: Concerning whom is the Rambam speaking in Chapter 6 when he states that asking a gentile to work on our behalf is prohibited merely by virtue of Rabbinic decree? A gentile who has not accepted the observance of any mitzvot at all.He may, however, perform [such labors] on his own behalf. Moreover, even if this foreigner is a servant [belonging to a Jewish master], [this foreigner] may perform [labors] for his own sake [on the Sabbath].88Thus, according to the Rambam, the verse quoted above contains two prohibitions: one requiring one to watch that any servants who have accepted the mitzvot observe the Sabbath laws, and another, prohibiting us from benefiting from any work done on our behalf by a gentile who has not accepted these mitzvot.