Shabbat - Chapter 19

1. 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.

Our translation is based on the Rambam’s Commentary on the Mishnah (Shabbat 6:2).

Even when hanging from one’s garments—e.g., a sword in a scabbard attached to one’s belt.

Our translation is based on the Rambam’s Commentary on the Mishnah (Shabbat 6:4). Rashi (Shabbat 63a) renders this term as “a mace.”

The 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).”

The 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 ofreligious 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.

Since 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.

This 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.

As 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.

The 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.

Since these rings are not considered to be jewelry for these individuals, they are considered to be carrying them in the public domain.

As mentioned in Chapter 12, Halachot 12-14, a person is liable for transferring an article only when he does so in an ordinary fashion.

This point is mentioned several times in this chapter as a rationale for restrictions governing women’s wearing jewelry in the public domain.

Although all Talmudic authorities prohibit women from wearing jewelry in public on the Sabbath, it has become customary for women to do so. Among the rationales offered by the Rabbis (See Tosafot, Shabbat 64b; Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 303:18) is: 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.

Indeed, our Sages never imposed any restrictions on men’s carrying in the public domain for this reason.

Since 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.

With 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.

Since it is not a piece of jewelry for him.

Shabbat 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.

Our 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 threads are tied to the woman’s hair. Accordingly, they would be considered to be a חֲצִיצָה, “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.

In 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.

In 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 ofthese 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.

A golden crown engraved with an impression of the city of Jerusalem.

In 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.)

Significantly, 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.

ln his Commentary on the Mishnah (Shabbat 6:3), the Rambam mentions that musk would usually be carried.

In his Commentary on the Mishnah (Shabbat, loc. cit.), the Rambam mentions that this pouch was also attractive, being made of gold or silver.

Balsam oil is renowned for its pleasant fragrance.

Significantly, our text of the Mishnah states kovellet, replacing the כ with a.כ The meaning of the term, however, does not change.

This 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.

This 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.

This 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.

Although 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.

ln 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.

See Shabbat 64b for an explanation why it is necessary to mention all three instances.

Based 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.

Even 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.

lt is, however, forbidden for a woman to wear a choker necklace (Maggid Mishneh).

This 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.

See Halachah 6 and notes.

To absorb the fluids it produces (Rashi, Shabbat 64b).

To make walking more comfortable (ibid).

As 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.

I.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.

So that the holes in their pierced ears will not close (Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah, Shabbat 6:6).

Our translation is based on the Rambam’s Commentary on the Mishnah, ibid. Rashi (Shabbat 65a) and others translate תולוער as “veiled.” See the notes on Halachah 18, which discuss the laws regarding wearing bells on the Sabbath.

Jewish 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, Shabbat 65a).

The 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.

Even if a coin was set aside for this purpose before the Sabbath, it is still considered to be muktzeh (Shulchan Aruch, loc. cit.).

Before the commencement of the Sabbath (Shulchan Aruch, loc. cit.).

A toothpick.

We 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.

These 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.

A coin from the Talmudic period.

A cure for weak thighs (Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah, Shabbat 6:10).

A cure for both insomnia and hyperactivity (ibid.).

A cure for continuous high fever (ibid.).

This 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. lt would appear that the latter cures mentioned are surely not practical medical advice, but rather a charm stemming from folklore (and perhaps pagan folklore). lndeed, 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.

A stone worn by a woman to prevent a miscarriage (Rashi, Shabbat 66b).

A weight equivalent to that of the tekumah stone, which is purported to have a similar positive effect (ibid.).

The 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.

At the outset, however, one is forbidden to go out wearing such an amulet.

l. e., the amulet is considered to be an ornament, like a piece of jewelry.

There 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.

Rashi (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.
lt 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.

This is the simple interpretation of the word.ןזפק 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.

The rationale is that the sandal may fall off and the child might carry it in the public domain.

Rashi interprets the Talmud (loc. cit.) as referring to a torn sandal.

Lest the sandal prove uncomfortable and the woman carry it.

Our 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.

For he did not transfer them in an ordinary manner (Merkevet HaMishneh).

This 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.

I.e., he performed a deed that indicates that he desires to use the wool as a wig.

If 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).

The 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.”

Our translation is taken from Rav Kapach’s translation of the Rambam’s Commentary on the Mishnah (Oholot 11:3).

In 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.”

Although these are not proper garments, since they resemble clothing and are useful in protecting one against the rain, they may be worn.

In 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.).

If, 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.)

Note 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.

This 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.

A seal indicating to whom he belongs. The seal is permitted because it resembles a piece of jewelry. In contrast to a metal seal, he is allowed to go out wearing a clay seal, since were it to fall, it would break and would be worthless.

But not hanging from his clothes (Maggid Mishneh).

The 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.

The Kessef Mishneh notes that the Rambam does not state that the person is liable, for the prohibition is Rabbinic in origin.

Rashi (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.

The 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.

Our 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.

This does not refer to a tallit used for prayer, but rather to an ordinary shawl that resembles such a garment.

See the Rambam’s Commentary on the Mishnah (Keilim 29:1).

Since 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.

Since 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.

The 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.

The 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.

Used 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.

I.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 11 b) appears to contradict the explanation given by Rabbenu A vraham, the Rambam’s son, to Halachah 5. (See the notes on that halachah.)

A man with a discharge from his sexual organ resembling that resulting from venereal disease. (See Leviticus, chapter 15; Hilchot Mechusarei Kapparah, chapter 2.)

As mentioned in the notes on Halachah 11, it is forbidden to wear an article merely to prevent one’s clothes from being soiled.

See Chapter 1, Halachah 7.

We 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.

Halachah 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.

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.

Shabbat 130a relates that the Romans made the wearing of tefillin punishable by death.

See 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.

There, 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)).

For 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.

Since 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.

Shulchan 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.

Although 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 Same’ach 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 Same’ach cites the use of similar substances, as mentioned in Halachah 17.

The 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.

See 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.

Compare to Hilchot Tefillin 4:12, which mentions similar concepts.

The commentaries state that this is necessary lest others receive the impression that it is permissible to wear tefillin on the Sabbath.