Rambam - 1 Chapter a Day

See Chapter 10, Halachah 16. Note, however, Halachah 14 of that chapter, which mentions making a hole in a chicken coop in connection with the forbidden labor of building.

Accordingly, many authorities forbid opening cans or bags on the Sabbath. The more lenient opinions, which allow this, base themselves on the concept that after the contents are removed from the. can or bag, it is no longer considered a useful article. Alternatively, these opinions maintain that the can is considered to be a utensil even before it is opened, and the cover is not at all significant.

The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 314:l) states that this restriction applies only when the person has the intent to widen the hole. If he does not have this intent, there is no prohibition. As an example, that text mentions a knife inserted into a barrel, even though the hole may be widened when the knife is removed; since that is not one’s intent, there is no prohibition involved. The Ramah emphasizes, however, that this leniency applies only when it is not a certainty אשיר ()קיספ that the hole will be opened further.

The Shulchan Aruch (loc. cit. :3) quotes the opinion of the Kolbo, which states that this leniency applies only regarding barrels of earthenware. A hole made in a wooden barrel which is tightly plugged may not be opened.

Shabbat 146a mentions three levels where holes might be made: a) a hole above the level of the wine. This is intended merely to protect the fragrance of the wine.
b) a hole in the middle of the wine. Since the wine is not entirely above the hole, it needed not be fastened so tightly. This is the subject of the present clause.
c) a hole below the dregs. This is the subject of the following clause.

Since the entire weight of the wine rests on this hole, it must be fastened very tightly. Accordingly, opening it is considered tantamount to opening a new hole.

Barrels would be sealed closed with clay that was spread out and hardened at their opening.

Opening the seal in this irregular manner clearly indicates that one did not intend to fashion an opening. An opening is generally not located on the top of a cask (Shulchan Aruch, loc. cit.:6).

A careful reading of the Rambam’s wording indicates the need for this bracketed addition (Maggid Mishneh). Significantly, this represents a reversal of the Rambam’s approach in his Commentary on the Mishnah (Shabbat 22:3), where he mentions making a hole in the side of the barrel.

The Shulchan Aruch (loc. cit.: 1) states that it is forbidden to break a complete barrel. Just as one is liable for performing the forbidden labor of building when fashioning a vessel, one is liable for performing the forbidden labor of demolishing when destroying one. Although one is not liable unless one breaks the barrel as a constructive act, even when one’s intent is destructive, doing so is forbidden by Rabbinic decree (Shulchan Aruch HaRav 314:1; Mishnah Berurah 314:7). There are, however, later authorities who follow the Rambam’s ruling, which permits destroying a utensil if one does not fashion it into a different utensil in the process.

Were one to make a carefully perforated hole, one would be fashioning it into a utensil (Rashi, Shabbat 146a).

Although a sword may not usually be carried on the Sabbath, it may be handled to perform a task that is permitted (Mishnah Berurah 314:24).

The Mishnah Berurah 314:25 states that this leniency applies only when guests are present.

This is also a restriction imposed, lest one complete the construction of a utensil.

See Halachah 11 of this chapter and also Chapter 11, Halachah 6.

See Chapter 22, Halachah 15.

Significantly, the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 314:11) follows the opinion of Rabbenu Asher and others, who maintain that one is allowed to close a barrel with a stone or a piece of wood, provided that one does not close it when wine is flowing out. The later authorities (Shulchan Aruch HaRav 314:20; Mishnah Berurah 314:47), however, differ, and rule that the Rambam’s decision should be followed.

Based on Shabbat 139b, many other authorities, including the Shulchan Aruch (loc. cit.), grant this leniency only to a Torah Sage, but not to a common person. Moreover, since Torah Sages of the caliber of those of the Talmudic era do not exist at present, there are authorities who do not permit this leniency at all in the present era.

See Chapter 10, Halachah 16.

See the Hagahot Maimoniot, which states that one may knock on a door, because this is not a musical tone. Although there are stringent opinions, common practice is to follow the more lenient view.

Our translation is taken from the Mishnah Berurah 339:9. (See also the Be’ur Halachah, which mentions that some versions of the Mishneh Torah omit the Hebrew word.וא According to this version, the meaning would be “to bang rhythmically on a board as singers do. “)

Note the Mishnah Berurah (ibid.), which cites authorities who interpret the phrase “rhythmically as singers do” as an exclusion. These opinions maintain that snapping one’s fingers to catch a colleague’s attention is not forbidden. Nevertheless, it is common practice to act stringently and not to snap one’s fingers at all.

Note the Ramah (Orach Chayim 339:3), who states that it is customary to allow clapping one’s hands and dancing on the Sabbath and holidays. The rationale for this leniency is that today most people are not able to repair a musical instrument, and thus the rationale ·for our Sages’ decree is no longer applicable.
lt must, however, be noted that this leniency is granted only with regard to dancing and clapping hands, not playing drums or performing any of the activities mentioned in the previous halachah. Even dancing and clapping hands is allowed only in rejoicing associated with a mitzvah (Mishnah Berurah 339:10).

Although bathing is permitted, as above (Chapter 22, Halachah 20), swimming is not.

If the pool is located in the public domain, it is forbidden to swim within it for another reason: lt is possible that one will spray water for more than four cubits (Mishnah Berurah 339:4).

As the Rambam continues סt mention, the reed serves as a spigot through which water flowing from a cask can be directed.

Opened at the ends so that the wine can flow through it like a pipe.

Measured and trimmed to fit the barrel. This leniency is granted even if this reed has never been used for this purpose before (Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 314:5).

In contrast to the reed mentioned above, which must merely be inserted into the barrel, it is necessary to fold the leaf and adjust it so that the wine will flow through (Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 314:5).

Rabbenu Asher and others follow the opinion of other Sages (Shabbat 146b), who explain that the reason for this decree is concern that one might pick a leaf on the Sabbath to use for this purpose. According to that opinion, if before the commencement of the Sabbath one has available many leaves that have been picked, one may use them for this purpose.
In the Kessef Mishneh, Rav Yosef Karo defends the Rambam’s ruling, and he quotes it in the Shulchan Aruch (loc. cit.). The Ramah, however, quotes Rabbenu Asher’s view.

The Maggid Mishneh and others cite Beitzah 4:4, which states that these items were used as makeshift frying pans. (Note the Rambam’s Commentary on the Mishnah and Hilchot Sh’vitat Yom Tov 4:8.) Rav Kapach, however, raises the question: Since frying is forbidden on the Sabbath, of what use would these articles be?

A white powder, referred to as alum or tartar which serves as a natural polish.

Rashi (Shabbat 50a) and other commentaries differ and state that the prohibition stems from the forbidden labor of removing hair.

See Shulchan Aruch HaRav 323:11 and the Mishnah Berurah 323:38, which mention several restrictions regarding the use of sand for this purpose.

In his Commentary on the Mishnah (Keilim 2:1), the Rambam describes neter as a blue pumice stone used for detergent purposes. (See also Hilchot Issurei Bi’ah 9:37.) It must noted that sodium is called natrium in Latin. This has led some to think that the intent is sodium bicarbonate, a natural cleanser.

The Ra’avad differs with the Rambam concerning the rationale for this restriction, explaining that it is not associated with the forbidden labor of dealing the final blow. Instead, it is prohibited so that one does not prepare on the Sabbath for a weekday. This opinion is also quoted by Shulchan Aruch HaRav 323:6.

The intent is that one may wash only those utensils that one intends to use again. Even when a person will serve another meal on the Sabbath, if he is not intending to use certain utensils, he may not wash them. One may, however, wash utensils on Friday night, even though one does not intend to use them until Saturday afternoon (Mishnah Berurah 323:27-28).

I.e., one may wash the glasses at any time, because it may be assumed that one will desire to drink later. If, however, a person knows that he will not drink again on the Sabbath, it is forbidden for him to wash pitchers and glasses as well (Shulchan Aruch HaRav 323:6; Mishnah Berurah 323:29).

Note, however, the Magen Avraham 302:6, who states that one may make a bed if the disorder in the room makes one extremely uncomfortable.

I.e., since the utensil was unfit for use before it was immersed, immersing it is equivalent to repairing it.

The Mishneh Torah also contains laws that will be relevant when the Temple is rebuilt, and the observance of all the laws of ritual impurity will be restored. At present this halachah is relevant in the following contexts: Women are permitted to immerse themselves in the mikveh on Friday night (with certain restrictions) and men are allowed to immerse themselves on the Sabbath for the sake of holiness (Shulchan Aruch HaRav 326:7; Mishnah Berurah 326:24). Care, however, must be taken when toweling oneself dry not to squeeze water from the towel.
Originally, the license to immerse oneself in the mikveh on the Sabbath was given before it was customary to heat mikvaot. At present, the leniency is continued in most communities, even when the mikveh has been heated.

This activity is necessary as part ofthe purification process for a person who became impure because of contact with a human corpse. Rashi (Pesachim 65b) explains that this is forbidden because it is obvious that one’s intent is to purify oneself. Rav Kapach, however, points to Pesachim 69a, which states that the prohibition was instituted lest one carry in the public domain.

In his Commentary on the Mishnah (Beitzah 2:2), the Rambam explains that if the utensil contracted ritual impurity, its immersion would be forbidden, since one would be purifying not only the water it contains, but also the utensil itself.

See Hilchot Keilim 1:6.

The Ra’avad mentions that terumah may not be separated even if one’s intent is to give it to the priest to use on the Sabbath itself.

See Halachah 14, where the Rambam offers another reason for this same prohibition.

The Merkevet HaMishneh notes that the Rambam does not mention Rabbinic prohibitions in connection with the forbidden labors of hunting, slaughtering, and skinning. The commentaries do note, however, that in Chapter 10 the Rambam mentions Rabbinic prohibitions in connection with hunting, and in Chapter 11 Rabbinic prohibitions in connection with slaughtering.

See Chapter 11, Halachot 5-6.

As mentioned in the notes on Chapter 21, Halachah 23, the Ramah (Orach Chayim 327:1) writes that at present, it is not common for healthy people to apply oil to themselves. Therefore, it is forbidden to apply any type of oil to oneself on the Sabbath for therapeutic purposes.

See Chapter 22, Halachah 18, and notes.

Our translation is taken from the Rambam’s Commentary on the Mishnah
(Keilim 26:5). Obviously, this bed-cover is made of leather. The Maggid Mishneh offers
a different interpretation.

Note, however, the Mishnah Berurah 327:12, which cites opinions that prohibit applying oil to used leather.

See Chapter 11, Halachah 6.

See Halachah 3, which prohibits closing a hole in connection with the forbidden labors of dealing the final blow or of building.

See Chapter 11, Halachah 9.

It must be emphasized that according to the text of Shabbat 94b, it would appear that applying eye-paint is associated with the forbidden labor of dyeing. Nevertheless, it would appear that the Rambam and many other Rishonim had a different version of the text, upon which he based his ruling in this halachah.

See the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 323), which mentions several leniencies and restrictions regarding the acquisition of foodstuffs on the Sabbath.

One may, however, give a present to a colleague. (See the Rambam’s Commentary on the Mishnah, Sukkah 3:11.)

Note, however, Hilchot Eruvin 2:12, which allows one to rent a gentile’s property on the Sabbath in order to complete an eruv.

The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 307:2) offers another rationale for the restriction against hiring workers, the prohibitions stemming from Isaiah 58:13, “If you refrain... from [ordinary] speech”—i.e., that our speech on the Sabbath be distinguished from our speech during the week. The Rambam mentions prohibitions of this nature in Chapter 24.

See related matters in Chapter 6.

The difference between borrowing such commodities and lending objects is that when one borrows an object, one intends to return the same object. When one borrows a commodity, by contrast, one intends to use it and return a different one. Thus, it bears a far greater resemblance to a loan.

Rabbenu Yitzchak Alfasi explains that “Give me as a loan” implies that the loan will be for an extended period. Hence, it is more likely that one will write it down.
The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 307:11) notes that in languages other than Hebrew, the difference between offering a loan and lending appears as one of semantics. Rather than say “Lend me” or “Give me as a loan,” one should say merely “Give me.”

The Shulchan Aruch and the Ramah (Orach Chayim 323) follow a slightly more lenient approach and allow certain products to be sold by number and in vessels from which a measure can be obtained.

Compare to similar laws mentioned in Hilchot Sh’vitat Yom Tov 4:19-24.

The ceremony through which a childless widow frees her brother-in-law from the obligation of yibbum.

This refers to the rite in which the brother-in-law of a childless widow marries her in order to perpetuate the name of her dead husband. (See Deuteronomy 25:5-10.)

According to Torah, marriage is a two-staged process: erusin (betrothal), when a bond between a husband and wife is established, but the two still live separately; and nisuin (marriage), when the couple begin their lives together.

When quoting this law, the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 339:4) states that divorce proceedings may not generally be carried out on the Sabbath, even if the bill of divorce was written beforehand.

This refers to the dedication of property to the Temple treasury or the consecration of an animal to be offered as a sacrifice.

See Leviticus 27:1-27.

See Leviticus 27:28-29.

See Halachah 9, where this reason is mentioned in connection with this prohibition.

See Leviticus 27:32.

For this was the common practice, as the Rambam mentions in Hilchot Bechorot 7:1.

When the fourteenth of Nisan falls on the Sabbath.

Since these offerings are associated with a fixed time, they will stand out distinctly in one’s mind and will not cause one to forget the Sabbath prohibitions (Shabbat 148b, Hilchot Korban Pesach 1:19).

The laws associated with sprinkling the water that has been mixed with the ashes of the red heifer are described in Numbers 19:11-21.

Note the Lechem Mishneh (in the gloss on Hilchot Sh’vitat Yom Tov 6:10), which states that this prohibition applies even when one has no other produce available. See also Sha’ ar HaMelech, which questions whether the prohibition applies to others besides the person who violated the prohibition. Note also Chapter 3, Halachah 9, and Chapter 6, Halachah 23.

The participants in the transaction are, however, given stripes for rebelliousness, the prohibition instituted for the violation of a Rabbinic prohibition (Hilchot Mechirah 30:7).

Although the Rabbis forbade partaking of such produce before tithing it, they considered this as merely a safeguard, for the majority of the common people did separate the · tithes. Therefore, one is not considered to be making an article fit for use to the same extent as when one separates tithes from produce that has surely not been tithed (Rav Ovadiah of Bertinoro, Shabbat 2:7). This law is also mentioned in Chapter 24, Halachah 10.

Produce purchased from a common person, which we are unsure whether or not it has been tithed.

But did not separate these portions (Rambam’s Commentary on the Mishnah, D’mai 4:5).

The tenth of the tithe, which the Levites were required to give to the priests.

Which was given instead of the second tithe in the third and sixth years of the seven-year cycle.

The bracketed additions are based on the Rambam’s Commentary on the Mishnah (loc. cit.). There the Rambam emphasizes that the prohibition centers on giving the designated portions. This is borne out by his rulings in Hilchot Ma’ aser 9:8-11, where he mentions leniencies in regard to the separation of the designated portions on the Sabbath if one makes a condition before the commencement of the Sabbath.

If he does not inform them, it is as if he were using the designated gifts for his own personal purposes (Rambam’s Commentary on the Mishnah, loc. cit.).

This is forbidden even during the week, because the Rabbis deemed gambling to be theft, and also because this reflects conduct that does not contribute to the stability of society (Hilchot Gezeilah 6:7, 11).

But not with outsiders, as reflected in the Rambam’s Commentary on the Mishnah (Shabbat 23:2) and his rulings in Hilchot Sh’vitat Yom Tov 4:20.

In the Kessef Mishneh and in the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 322:6), Rav Y osef Karo follows the interpretation of Shabbat 148b by Rabbenu Yitzchak Alfasi and Rabbenu Asher, and forbids casting lots, even among one’s own household, unless the portions are equal.

See, however, Chapter 24, Halachah 4, which states that one should minimize one’s involvement in such idle matters on the Sabbath. Indeed, as is evident from the Rambam’s Commentary on the Mishnah (Avot 1:16) and Hilchot De’ot 2:4, the Rambam frowns on such conversation during the week as well. To quote Hilchot Gezeilah 6:11: “It is not for a person to spend any of his days involved in anything other than the words of wisdom and the matters that lead to the settlement of the world.”

The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 307:13) renders the Hebrew תוטוידה ירטש as “account sheets.” Rashi (Shabbat 149a) interprets this as also referring to social correspondence. Based on the Rambam’s commentary on the Mishnah (Shabbat 23:2), the Maggid Mishneh states that the Rambam follows Rashi’s view.
[The Shulchan Aruch (loc. cit.:14) permits reading a social letter on the Sabbath only if one is unaware of its contents.]

Erasing is one of the categories of forbidden labor, as the Rambam explains in Chapter 11, Halachah 9. Rabbenu Asher (in his gloss to Shabbat 149b) differs and explains that the restriction mentioned stems from the prohibitions derived from Isaiah 58:13, which distinguish between one’s conduct on the Sabbath and one’s involvement in mundane, weekday concerns.

Regarding this ruling, the Rambam writes (Commentary on the Mishnah, loc. cit.), “On the Sabbath, it is forbidden to read anything other than the words of prophecy and their explanations [i.e., the Oral Law]. Among the matters excluded are [works of secular] wisdom and science.”

Rashi (Shabbat 149a) and the Shulchan Aruch (loc. cit.:15) interpret this as referring to descriptions written under works of art. Others explain that this refers to images of false deities.

I.e., the Holy Writings, in contrast to the Torah and the prophets.

See Chapter 30, Halachah 10, where the Rambam describes the attendance at the House of Study on the Sabbath.

The Maggid Mishneh states that the wording used by the Rambam indicates that a person in an adjoining courtyard where the fire has not yet caught may transfer all his property to a further removed courtyard if an eruv has been made. This concept is also mentioned in the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 334:1).

The Shulchan Aruch (loc. cit.:11) mentions a further leniency: One may transfer property from a house to an adjoining house or to another courtyard that one owns. There is, however, a difference of opinion among the Rabbis whether this leniency is accepted or not.

Another example of a leniency granted because of this principle is found in Chapter 6, Halachah 22.

The particular laws stemming from this principle are described in Halachot 21-25.

As examples, the Shulchan Aruch (loc. cit.:7) mentions cups and pitchers. From the Shulchan Aruch HaRav 334:8 and the Mishnah Berurah 334:17, it would appear that permission is granted only to save utensils one needs for eating, but not other articles—e.g., pillows and blankets—that might be required on the Sabbath.

See Halachah 25.

This restriction applies even according to the authorities who maintain that the prohibition against carrying in a lane is Rabbinic in origin. Shulchan Aruch HaRav 334:10 and the Mishnah Berurah 334:26 mention that these restrictions do not apply with regard to saving clothes. Since one must wear them as garments, one may take them out to the public domain as well.

One may save enough for three meals for every member of his household. Regardless of whether a person eats a large amount or a small amount, a standard measure—and only that standard measure—of food may be saved for him (Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 334:5).

This indicates that one may save several different containers containing different types of food.

The bracketed additions are made on the basis of Shulchan Aruch HaRav 334:6 and the Mishnah Berurah 334:16, which emphasize that, even though one may pour the contents of several containers into a garment, one must empty the containers. lt is forbidden to place the containers themselves in a garment and remove them.

1. e., even though the person who owns the property may not save more than household needs, all of his food stores need not be left to the flames. Other peop may be invited to save for themselves.

Since our Sages forbade the person from saving it, he despairs of ever recovering it and relinquishes his ownership.
The above applies only when the person makes an explicit statement inviting others to save the property. If he does not issue such an invitation, we cannot assume that he has relinquished ownership. Although he is forbidden from saving more himself, others are not allowed to take for themselves, for the owner may yet hope to find friends who will save the food and return it to him at no cost (Shulchan Aruch HaRav 334:7; Mishnah Berurah 334:22).

In his Commentary on the Mishnah [Shabbat 16:3 (based on Shabbat 120a)], the Rambam describes this as “God-fearing conduct,” for it reflects an unwillingness to benefit from property that is not one’s own. In this instance, this is particularly true, for the owner does not willingly abandon ownership of his property.

lt is, however, pious conduct not to accept payment (Shabbat, loc. cit.).

The Maggid Mishneh and others draw attention to the Rambam’s statements at the conclusion of Chapter 6, which forbid taking payment even for activities that are permitted on the Sabbath unless the wage is paid for a larger span of time. Rav David Arameah explains that the prohibition against taking payment for one’s Sabbath activities is Rabbinic in origin. In this instance, because of the positive nature of the activity involved, the Sages did not impose any restrictions. Shulchan Aruch HaRav explains that the article rightfully belongs to the person who saved it. Although he relinquishes ownership in favor of his original owner, he does not relinquish ownership of that portion of the article that is equivalent to his wage. What he is receiving from the owner is, in fact, payment for property that he was entitled to take possession of.

According to the fixed calendar we follow at present, Yom Kippur will not fall on either a Friday or a Sunday. This law, as many of the other laws in the Mishneh Torah, will apply only after the coming of the Redemption.

If Yom Kippur falls on Thursday and one knows that it will be impossible to prepare one’s Sabbath needs on Friday, one is permitted to save food on Yom Kippur for the Sabbath (Shulchan Aruch HaRav 334:4; Mishnah Berurah 334:13). Similarly, one may save food on Y om Kippur for the mesal following the fast, regardless of the day of week (Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 334:4).

It appears that, according to the Rambam, one may not return and save other clothes. This is the subject of a difference of opinion among the Sages in the Mishnah (Shabbat 16:4). Rabbi Yosse maintains that one may return and put on a second set of clothes. Since one is not carrying the garments, but wearing them, we rule more leniently than regarding foodstuffs. This ruling is followed by the Rashba and the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 334:8).

Since our Sages forbade a person from saving any more clothes, we assume that he despaired. of recovering any more of his property. As mentioned above, many authorities accept this rationale only when the person actually invites others to save the clothes.

Although the Rambam is speaking about saving sacred texts from fire, the same laws apply to another factor—e.g., a flood—that might cause their ruin (Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 334:19).

This term refers to the books of the Bible.
There is somewhat of a difficulty with the Rambam’s ruling. He is quoting the Mishnah (Shabbat16:1). Nevertheless, the teachings of the Mishnah were appropriate in the beginning of the Talmudic era, when it was only the Written Law and not the Oral Law that was written down. The composition of the Mishnah marked a turning point in Jewish history, and from that point onward, it was permitted to write down the teachings of the Oral Law. (See the Rambam’s Introduction to the Mishneh Torah.) Texts containing such teachings are also considered sacred articles and may be saved from a fire, just like the books of the Bible (Shulchan Aruch HaRav 334:12; Mishnah Berurah 334:31). Since the Rambam wrote the Mishneh Torah after it became permitted to write down the Oral Law, seemingly, it would have been appropriate for him to refer to texts of the Oral Law as well.

According to the Rambam, such an lane is considered a private domain according to Torah law, and the prohibition against carrying within it is only Rabbinic in origin (Chapter 17, Halachah 2). Accordingly, this restriction is relaxed in order to save the sacred articles. Although some authorities differ with the Rambam regarding the above halachah, they also require an lane to have three walls and a pole in this instance (Shulchan Aruch HaRav 334:17; Mishnah Berurah 334:48).

I.e., the script in which tefillin, mezuzot, and Torah scrolls are written.

I.e., and not a transliteration of other languages.

As explained above, the Rambam’s ruling applied in the Talmudic period, before it became acceptable to write the Oral Law. Once that was permitted, translations of the Bible were also permitted, and the same laws apply to them. Similarly, siddurim and other similar texts may be saved.

As mentioned above, after permission was granted to write the Oral Law, this prohibition no longer applies.

Our translation is based on Rashi (Shabbat 115a) and the Ramah (Orach Chayim 334:12).

Which are not acceptable for writing a Torah scroll (Hilchot Tefillin 1:5).

See Hilchot Sefer Torah, Chapters 8 and 9, which mention how much empty parchment must be left for each of the situations mentioned by the Rambam.

This refers to an instance where these blank portions of parchment had been cut from the Torah scroll.

I.e., a text similar to our siddurim (Rashi, Shabbat 115b).

As mentioned above, after permission was granted to write the Oral Law, siddurim were also accorded the status of sacred articles (Shulchan Aruch, loc. cit.:12).
Regarding amulets containing verses, there is a difference of opinion among the Rabbis. The Tur (Orach Chayim 334) differs with the Rambam and maintains that in the present age, such amulets may be saved. Even though most of the later authorities follow the Rambam’s ruling, the Pri Megadim suggests saving amulets with verses that contain God’s name.

The expression “a total” implies that the letters need not be in the same word, but may be scattered throughout the scroll (Rashi, Shabbat 115b).
In certain contexts, the passage ןוראה עוםננ יחיו is considered a separate book of the Torah. (See Rashi’s commentary on the verse.) Since that passage contains 85 letters, any parchment with 85 letters can be considered a scroll.

I.e., the scroll may contain more letters, but if the letters are in words that are partially torn or rubbed out, they are not included in this sum.

I.e., words whose origin is not Hebrew (Genesis 31:47).

The commentaries question the Rambam’s statements, since as stated above, the passage ןוראה עוםננ יחיו contains 85 letters. See also the Shulchan Aruch HaRav 334:15 which states that if a scroll contains God’s name, it should be saved even though it contains less than 85 letters.

1. e., the carrying case is considered as subordinate to the scroll. Therefore, it is not considered an independent entity, but is rather governed by the more lenient laws that govern the T orah scroll.

Although the money is muktzeh, there is no need to shake it from the carrying case, and it may be taken to the same place as the tefillin. This leniency was granted so that a person would not be required to delay in saving the property that he was entitled to save (Shulchan Aruch HaRav 334:18).