Siman 303

It has already been explained in siman 301, section 49, that due to the gravity of the prohibition of hotza'ah and due to the prevalence of the habit—the sages were compelled to establish safeguards regarding matters of hotza'ah. They specifically decreed upon women regarding several of their ornaments that they should not wear them on Shabbat, and in the Yerushalmi at the beginning of "Bameh Ishah" it says: Because women are prideful and she may untie it (to show it) to her friend—and she may forget and walk with them four amot; see there. And there are several reasons for this: there are those that are because a woman requires tevilah, it is possible that she will untie the object before she enters for tevilah, and carry it four amot in the reshut harabim; and many that they prohibited out of concern that she will want to boast and show the beauty of her ornaments to her friends, as the Yerushalmi says. And there are those that they prohibited for the reason that it is loose and will fall and she will carry it four amot in the reshut harabim; and there are those that they prohibited due to marit ayin; and there are those that they prohibited because while walking people will mock her and she will remove them and carry them four amot in the reshut harabim. All of these laws will be explained in this siman.

A woman may not go out with wool threads on her head, nor with linen threads on her head, nor with straps on her head—meaning those wound around her head—for we decree lest a mikveh immersion happen to occur for her on Shabbat and she will go with them to the place of immersion, and at the time of immersion she must loosen them so they are not tight and form a chatzitzah during immersion. Therefore, there is reason for concern both during her going, that she will remember she must loosen them and remove them entirely from her head in order to hasten her immersion and carry them four amot in the public domain; and similarly during her return, that she will remove them from her head at the time of immersion and after the immersion she will hasten to go and forget about Shabbat, and due to her haste she will not place them there on her head but rather carry them in her hand and go and move them four amot in the public domain. And why do we not decree thus regarding garments? Because it is not the way of a woman to walk in the street without all her garments and her large items, which is not the case with small things such as these, for even on a weekday she is occasionally not fastidious about carrying them in her hand while walking. And they decreed regarding all women, even regarding virgins and elderly women for whom immersion is not relevant, for the sages did not differentiate.

And if the threads and the straps are braided within her hair—she is permitted to go out with them, because in such cases it is forbidden to undo her braid on Shabbat, for the braiding of hair is a labor and likewise the undoing of the braid, and of necessity she would undo them on the eve of Shabbat and remove them from there. And likewise when she wishes to braid them after the immersion, it is obvious that it is impossible on Shabbat, and if so, she will not come to a mishap. And there is one who forbids even in such cases, and this is the opinion of Rashi at the beginning of "Bameh Ishah," see there, and the reason is that we fear perhaps she will loosen the braids until the water enters them and she is permitted to immerse in them, and then the concern returns to its place that perhaps she will remove them afterward entirely and carry them in the public domain. However, we hold in Yoreh Deah siman 198 that it is not effective that she loosen them, see there. (And see Turei Zahav subsection 1 and his words require further study as written in the Kuntres Acharon of the Rav, of blessed memory)

And if the strings are made in the manner of a net like chains, and some of them have a hollow space for the hair and she cannot tighten them firmly upon her hair, and the water enters them and they do not constitute a chatzitzah—she is permitted to go out in them on Shabbat even when they are not braided into her hair, for she will not need to remove them at the time of immersion. However, this is regarding the matter of chatzitzah; but if there is a concern that she may desire to remove them for another reason, such as if they are soiled with mud and she will not want to bring them into the waters of the mikveh so that the mud does not dissolve in the water and soil her flesh upon her ascent, or conversely that due to their preciousness she will be concerned about bringing them into the water, such as if they are gilded and the like—she is forbidden to go out in them, for the reason that she might remove them before the immersion and come to carry them four amot in the public domain as I have written. (See Magen Avraham sub-sections 4 and 5, and according to what I have written, the Shulchan Aruch also intended this, for Rashi explained accordingly there regarding hollow chains, see there, and so wrote the Gra"z)

And this is regarding the threads on her head, but regarding the threads wrapped around her neck—a woman is permitted to go out in them, for there is no concern here regarding immersion, as they are not tied tightly around her neck such that the water would not reach them, for a woman does not strangle herself and they are loose, and the water enters and she will not need to remove them. And if they are golden threads or the like, such that she would be concerned about bringing them into the water—it is forbidden as has been written regarding the threads of the head, and similarly if they are soiled with mud. And specifically with threads on her neck she is permitted for the reason that has been explained, but with a katla on her neck, which is a garment she hangs on her neck over her heart, and it has a place for loops where they insert a wide strap and she ties the strap around her neck—she is forbidden to go out in it, because this strap is wide and even if she tightens it on her neck she will not strangle herself, and a woman desires to tighten it on herself so that she appears beautiful like a fleshy woman, and this is an interposition in immersion and the concern remains as with the threads of the head. And besides this, there is a prohibition in this due to another concern, and that is that if it is important and decorated in the manner of katlaot—we concern ourselves lest she remove it to show its beauty and quality to her friends, and she will forget about the Shabbat and carry it four amot in the public domain.

And for this reason, she may not go out with a totfet, which is a type of tzitz that reaches from ear to ear, nor with sarvitin, which is also like a tzitz but only reaches until the cheeks, which she wraps around her head and it hangs upon her cheeks from here and from there, for we fear perhaps she will remove it and show it. And this is specifically when they are not sewn into the shevakhah upon her head, which is like a veil. But if they are sewn into the shevakhah—she is permitted to go out in them, for she will certainly not remove them from her head, as she will not remove the shevakhah from her head and remain with a bare head. And some say that this applies to a married woman who is forbidden to uncover her head, but virgins whose way is to uncover their head—they are forbidden even if they are sewn, for the reason of "perhaps she will remove it and show it." And even though regarding immersion we said that the sages did not differentiate—this is to be stringent and not to be lenient, and nevertheless, we will not forbid here the married women on account of the virgins, for the primary decree is for the sake of the married women who are adults and many, and we do not decree regarding them for the sake of the few young ones; and the first opinion holds that even for leniency the sages did not differentiate. And know, that all these ornaments that have been explained and that will be explained—this is according to their time, and now none of these ornaments are found among us.

She may not go out with a kavul, which is a woolen cap, namely woolen threads woven to a width of two fingers like the size of the tzitz, and she places it around the face as an ornament, and there is a concern lest she remove it to show it to her friends. And so too, she may not go out with an itztama, which is a cloth upon which colored threads are hung, and they hang it for a bride to drive away the flies from her face, because she is embarrassed to drive them away from her face and is distressed, and they do this for her; and this is not a matter of an ornament at all and is like a burden, and because of this she may not go out with it even though she needs it, and this is the explanation of the Rif and the Rambam for the istima in the Gemara there. And Rashi, of blessed memory, explained that this is a small turban that binds the hairs that protrude out from her hair-ties, and prevents the hairs from protruding. And the Aruch explained: a piece of gilded cloth in which precious stones and pearls are fixed, and according to this the prohibition is because of "remove and show" as with all ornaments.

She may not go out with a "city of gold," and Rashi explained that it is a round ornament upon which they depict a sort of city, and in the middle there is a tongue with which they attach it to the garment. And Rabbeinu Tam explained that it is like a crown for the head, and in the Gemara (59a) it is found as "Jerusalem of Gold," and automatically the same law applies to any city. And there is no practical difference in the law, for all ornaments regarding which there is a concern that she might remove them and show them are forbidden. (And in the Aruch, under the entry "Jerusalem," he explained it as a crown upon which is the form of Jerusalem, see there.)

A kelila, which is an ornament that she places on her forehead from ear to ear and ties with hanging straps—she is permitted to go out in it, whether it is made of pieces of gold strung on a thread or whether those pieces are fixed to a cloth. And the reason is because ordinary women are not accustomed to wearing this ornament, and only prominent women wear this, and a prominent woman will not remove it and show it. Nevertheless, regarding ornaments that all women wear—even a prominent woman is forbidden, for the sages did not differentiate, as I wrote regarding the concern of immersion in the matter of virgins and elderly women in section 2; see there.

A rasukya, which is a wide piece of a cloak, and the Aruch explained it as a leather belt—if it has short straps hanging from it to tie it with and to tighten them around it so that it is fastened, it is permitted; but if it does not have straps, it is forbidden. And she may not go out with a katla, which is a garment that has laces like trousers and is significant and decorated with gold, and we have already explained it in section 5. And she may not go out with nose rings, lest she remove them and show them, but she may go out with the ear rings of their days, because then the women would cover their ears with their veils, and it was a burdensome matter for her to remove them because of the bindings. Therefore, in a place where they are accustomed to reveal the ears, they are forbidden to go out with rings that are in the ear when they are able to remove them from there easily, for the reason of "lest she remove them and show them."

It has already been explained in siman 301, section 57, that a perforated needle is not an ornament for a woman, and if she went out with it, she is liable for a chatat; and a needle that is not perforated is an ornament for a woman, for she tucks it into her hair-bindings. For the non-perforated one is made on one side round and thick like an ornament, but the perforated one is only for sewing with it, and therefore the non-perforated one is like all ornaments for which there is a concern that she might remove it and show it. And behold, the Rambam in chapter 19 did not mention a distinction in this, but rather wrote plainly: that a non-perforated one is an ornament, and there is a concern that she might remove it and show it; see there. However, the Tur wrote: "And she may not go out with a needle with which she parts her hair even if it is made to be used as an ornament, but a needle with which she secures her hair-bindings, she may go out with it. And she may not go out with a perforated needle, and if she went out, she is liable; and with one that is not perforated she may not go out, and if she went out, she is exempt." Thus far his words.

The explanation of the matters is that we learned in the Mishnah: "Nor with a needle that is not perforated, and if she went out—she is not liable for a chatat," for the prohibition is because of removing it and showing it. And it is explained in the Gemara (60a) that with a needle that is not perforated, which she uses to gather her hair and inserts the needle into the hair-net—she is permitted to go out, for there is no concern of removing it and showing it, since when she removes it she will reveal her hair. Rather, the Mishnah is dealing with a needle with which she divides her hair to here and to there, and it is an ornament and not a burden according to the explanation of Rashi. And it asks: On Shabbat, what is it fit for? And it answers: It has a gold plate on its head, etc. And Rashi explained: What is it fit for? For behold, she does not divide her hair on Shabbat, see there. And it is found that according to this, it is indeed an ornament, except that on Shabbat she does not divide her hair. And the Tosafot and the Rosh and the Rashba raised a difficulty against him: why is it forbidden to divide the hair on Shabbat? And furthermore, is it because of this an ornament? For behold, it is only a functional vessel and is a burden. Therefore, they explained that the truth is so, and this is its question "what is it fit for," meaning, behold it is a burden, and it answers: a gold plate, etc. And behold, according to these our teachers, an ordinary needle that is not perforated is a burden, unless it is made with a gold plate. And it is clear that the Rambam holds like Rashi, for since he did not bring all of this but wrote simply: that with one that is not perforated it is an ornament—behold it is explained like Rashi. And also, I do not understand according to the words of our teachers that which we learned in the Mishnah (62a): "A woman may not go out with a perforated needle, and if she went out—she is liable for a chatat"; why specifically a perforated one? For even if it is not perforated, in such a case it is a burden. And so the Rishonim—the Semag and Sefer HaTerumah and the Mordechai and our teacher Yerucham—all wrote simply that a needle that is not perforated is an ornament, except that it is forbidden lest she remove it and show it. And I wonder that the commentators of the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch did not speak of this, and of necessity it must be said that these our teachers also hold that a needle that is not perforated is an ornament when she inserts it into her scarves and veils for the sake of decoration, but they disagree with Rashi that the needle with which she divides her hair is not an ornament at all, and therefore if the needle is designated for this—it is a burden.

And these are the very words of the Tur, who wrote: "And she may not go out with a needle with which she parts her hair, even if it is made to be adorned with it." That is to say, that a needle with which she parts the hair is not an ornament, according to the words of the Tosafot. But with a needle with which she secures her head-coverings, she may go out. And she may not go out with a perforated needle, and if she went out, she is liable for a chatat, as it is not made at all to be tucked into her veils and the like. And with one that is not perforated, she may not go out, and if she went out she is exempt when it is tucked into her veils and the like, because it is an ornament.

Our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote in section 9: "She may not go out with a perforated needle, and if she went out—she is liable. And one that is not perforated, if she supports her head-coverings with it—it is permitted to go out with it, and if she does not support her head-coverings with it—it is forbidden." Thus far his words. For when it supports her head-coverings she will not remove them, so as not to reveal her hair, but if it does not support her head-coverings but rather she sticks it into her veil and the like—it is forbidden, lest she remove it and show it. But when it serves no purpose at all—she is certainly liable for a chatat. And this is the manner of carrying if it is stuck in the place of her head-coverings, for there it is the manner to carry it, and when it serves no purpose at all, meaning it does not support her head-coverings and does not serve any purpose—she is liable for a chatat. However, when it is stuck in her garment—she is exempt, because this is not the manner of carrying it, as I wrote in siman 301 at the end of section 58; see there. And there is one who wrote that with a perforated needle, even if she supports her head-coverings with it—she is liable for a chatat (Beit Yosef and Magen Avraham subsection 7 and Taz subsection 7 at the end), and some say she is exempt, because this is not the manner of carrying it (Bach and Eliyah Rabbah subsection 12). And in my humble opinion these matters are completely astonishing, for since in any event it serves a purpose for her garments, how is it possible to make her liable even if this is the manner of carrying it, for this is not carrying but rather a use for the garment, just as we wrote in siman 301 there regarding a man, that when the needle serves in place of hooks why should it be forbidden; see there. And so I found in the Shiltei Gibborim chapter 6, and this is his wording: "The Rosh wrote that a woman may go out with a needle with which she supports head-coverings and similarly with a needle with which she gathers her hair etc., and he does not distinguish whether the needle be perforated or not." Thus far his words. However, regarding the essence of the matter according to the form of our needles that are not perforated—the concern of "lest she remove it and show it" does not apply to them, for what beauty is there in this. And it must be said that for them it was in the form of an ornament, just as there are also among us large and beautiful ones that women stick into their veils. (And all the words of the Taz were not clarified to me, also the words of the Magen Avraham subsection 7 require further study as I wrote, and his words in subsection 8 where he challenges the Bach—it is certainly so, but what he wrote that if it is made like an ornament even if it supports her head-coverings it is forbidden lest she remove it and show it—requires further study, for in the Gemara it implies explicitly otherwise, and in the Beit Yosef in the name of the Semag he did not write this regarding supporting head-coverings; see there, and all this requires further study. However, for the halacha now there is no practical difference, for we are not concerned with "lest she remove it and show it," and our women go out with ornaments as will be explained in this siman, and only regarding the matter of a perforated needle which they forbade even when supporting head-coverings it requires great study, and it seems that they have accustomed to permit it as written in the Shiltei Gibborim; and delve into this.)

She may not go out with a ring that has a seal upon it, and if she went out—she is liable. And when it does not have a seal upon it she may not go out, and if she went out—she is exempt, and the reason for the matter was explained in siman 301, section 55, see there. And she may not go out with a kulyar, which is an ornament with which she ties the opening of her garment, and it must be said that when she removes it, the opening of her garment does not open such that her flesh is seen, for if it were not so, we would not be concerned that she might remove it and show it, as with a needle that holds the bindings. However, there are those who interpret that it is a type of veil, and the Aruch interpreted that it is like a crown. And she may not go out with a kovelet, which is a knot in which is tied a perfume of pleasant scent, and a woman whose scent is bad carries it upon her (Rashi 62a), and it is an ornament and we decree lest she remove it and show it (Gemara ibid.).

If one of her teeth is missing and she places another in its stead, if it is of gold—she may not go out with it, for since it is different in appearance from the rest of the teeth, perhaps they will mock her and she will remove it and carry it in her hand four cubits in the public domain. But if it is of silver—it is permitted, for since it is white it is similar to the rest of the teeth, and they will not mock her, and all the more so a human tooth is permitted. And nowadays the doctors make teeth of bone, and their appearance is exactly like natural teeth.

She may not go out in a shoe that is torn on top, lest they mock her and she remove it and carry it, nor in a new shoe, lest it not fit her size, unless she tried walking in it from yesterday so that it is her size. However, for a man—it is permitted, as he is not so fastidious. And so it is with all things where the concern is due to mockery—a man will not be concerned for this in most matters. And regarding other garments—there is no concern even for a woman, for she will not strip off the garment while walking, except for a single shoe, where even for a man there is concern that they will mock him, as written in siman 301, section 52; see there. And a woman may go out with hair strands made to be placed on her head, called in our language a "paruk," whether they are made from her own hair or from the hair of her fellow or even from the hair of an animal, provided that an old woman does not go out with that of a young woman nor a young woman with that of an old woman, for they would mock both of them and they would remove them from their heads and come to carry them four amot in the reshut harabim (Tosafot 64b, s.v. "u-vilvad"). Rashi, of blessed memory, explained that it is because they also have their own hair, and white on black or black on white is a loathsome thing, and she will come to remove it and carry it; see there.

She may go out with a knot that they make for the healing of a twitch of the eye so that the evil eye shall not rule, and with a wad of wool tied and fastened in her ear, and with a wad of wool in her sandal that is tied to her sandal, and with a sandal or a shoe that are closed on all sides—even if it is not tied it is permitted, for it will not fall, since they are closed, and with a wad of wool that she prepared for her menstruation so that blood will not fall upon her and cause her pain. But if she intends so that the blood will not fall upon her garments and she carries it so that her garments will not be soiled—it is forbidden, for any saving from soilage is a burden, as I wrote in siman 301, section 65, unless it is a complete garment, as I wrote there in section 66, see there. But when the intention is so that it will not fall upon her body—it is a bodily need and is permitted even if it is not tied. And we do not fear for its falling and her bringing it, for since it is repulsive—she will not come to bring it, and even if it has a handle, because it is very repulsive. And likewise she is permitted to go out with a peppercorn in her mouth and a grain of salt and any perfume that she places into her mouth, provided that she does not place them initially on Shabbat, a decree because of the grinding of herbs as with all healings. Alternatively, because she appears as if she is practicing deception to take them out on Shabbat (Tosafot 64b, s.v. "u-vilvad"). However, according to this reason, even the wads of wool that we enumerated—it is also forbidden to place them initially on Shabbat (ibid.). And likewise if it fell from her mouth—she may not return it, whether it fell on the ground or whether it fell on a vessel (Magen Avraham, subsection 11), and this is according to the second reason. But according to the first reason—specifically when it fell on the ground, for it is a new placement.

And likewise, she is permitted to go out in leggings that she ties with a cord around her shins, even though the cord is not permanently attached to them, and we do not fear lest they slip down, because she certainly ties them well. And that which we said, "even though it is not tied" — this refers to a permanent tying to the leggings. And we do not fear that she will remove it and show it, for behold, this is not an ornament, and even if it were an ornament, she would not reveal her shin (ibid. subsection 12). And she may go out with an armlet that is placed on the arm or the shin, provided that it is attached to the flesh and will not slip off from the arm or the shin, and we do not fear that she will remove it and show it, because she will not reveal her arm or her shin. And there is one who forbids an armlet of the arm, for we fear she will remove it and show it, as the arm is sometimes revealed and is not similar to her shin, which is always covered.

And there is a great principle in this: that in everything the sages permitted her to go out with, as has been explained—she may untie it in the reshut harabim and we do not fear that she will carry it four amot, for since the sages said that this object must be upon her, then automatically when she unties it in the reshut harabim she will go back and tie it. And anything the sages forbade going out with into the reshut harabim—it is forbidden to go out with it into a courtyard that is not incorporated in an eruv, and so it is stated in the Gemara (64b): "Rav said: Anything the sages forbade going out with into the reshut harabim—it is forbidden to go out with it into a courtyard, except for a woolen cap and a wig, so that she does not become unappealing to her husband. Rabbi Anani bar Sasson in the name of Rabbi Yishmael said: Everything is like a woolen cap," and all ornaments are permitted in a courtyard, and the Rif and the Rambam ruled like Rav. And the reason they decreed even for a courtyard—it is not a decree upon a decree, for the rabbis were certain that if she goes out into the courtyard, she will also go out into the reshut harabim (Ran, see there). And the Rambam wrote that the courtyard is one that is not incorporated in an eruv, which is like a karmelit, but in a courtyard incorporated in an eruv—it is permitted, and certainly in a house. And the Ramban and the Rashba wrote that for a courtyard incorporated in an eruv it is forbidden, and the same law applies in a house, for the sages decreed that she should not adorn herself with them at all, for if she adorns herself she will certainly go out to the reshut harabim. But Rabbeinu Tam ruled like Rabbi Anani, that everything is like a woolen cap and it is permitted with all ornaments to go out into a courtyard that is not incorporated in an eruv according to the first opinion. And know that according to the words of those who forbid adorning oneself even in their house—there are those who forbid bringing a key even in a courtyard incorporated in an eruv except in one's hand and not in one's belt, lest one forget and carry it out to the reshut harabim, for anything that a person goes out with by way of a garment there is reason to fear that one will go out with it into the reshut harabim, which is not the case when the object is in one's hand, and likewise in a house it is forbidden in one's belt for this reason.

And behold, the earliest of the early authorities have already been awakened to the question of why and for what reason our women go out with all their jewelry into the public domain and no one protests against them. And in truth, there are those who wrote that they are forbidden, but since they will not listen to us, it is better that they be unintentional offenders and not be intentional offenders; and Heaven forbid to say so. Therefore, our teachers began to seek merit for them. And there are those who wrote that we have grasped as the primary view the method of Rabbeinu Tam, of blessed memory, mentioned in the previous section, that everything is like a "kabul," and they are permitted to go out with all jewelry into a courtyard that is not incorporated in an eruv, and in our locales there is no public domain, and our streets are considered a karmelit. And even though it is proven in the Gemara (102a) regarding a fire that a karmelit is more stringent than a courtyard that is not incorporated in an eruv—for one may rescue from a fire into a courtyard that is not incorporated in an eruv but not into a karmelit—this was for them, who had a public domain, as a karmelit is more similar to a public domain than a courtyard that is not incorporated in an eruv; but nowadays, when we have no public domain, they are equal (Tosafot 64b, s.v. "Rabbi Anani").

And it is still not sufficient, for this is built upon the view that nowadays we do not have a reshut harabim because we require sixty ribo, but many and great ones do not hold so, as I wrote in siman 345; and furthermore, are there not now large cities in the world that have sixty ribo? Therefore, some say another reason: because nowadays ornaments are common and they go out in them even on weekdays, and there is no concern that she will remove it and show it as in their days, when they were not accustomed to go out in them except on Shabbat and they were not common. And some wrote that our women do not show their ornaments and their rings. And the matter can be explained, for behold in section 9 it was explained that a kelila is permitted for the reason that who is accustomed to go out in a kelila? An important woman, and an important woman will not remove it and show it, and our women are all important. And there is another reason for this in my humble opinion: for behold it is known that in their days the women would sit in their houses and would not go out constantly to the street, and when they went out occasionally they would go out wrapped in their sheets, and also they did not have beit knessets for women. If so, they did not see one another except occasionally and a little when one entered her friend's house, and the concern was great that when they encountered one another on Shabbat while walking in the street, she would remove it and show it. But now women walk much and constantly in the streets and in the markets, and enter one another's houses and see one another in the women's beit knesset; if so, it follows that she can show her ornaments to her in their houses and in the beit knessets. And certainly it is not their way to strip off an ornament in the street and show it to their friends, and behold we see tangibly that even on weekdays and on Yom Tov they do not do so, so why should we be concerned on Shabbat? And this is a correct and clear permission.

And it is simple that this permission is only for the concern of "removing and showing," and this applies to most ornaments. But in a place where there is a concern that "they will laugh at her" — even nowadays it is forbidden, but this matter is not common among us, as is known. So too, this permission does not apply in a place where they said it constitutes a burden, such as a ring that has a seal for a woman, and one that does not have a seal for a man, and similarly a perforated needle for a woman, for these were not forbidden for the reason of "removing and showing" but rather for the reason that it is a burden and she would be liable for a chatat. However, even in this there is a reason for permission, for we have already written in siman 301, section 56, that nowadays it is the way of men to wear on their fingers a ring that does not have a seal, see there, and if so, it is known that women also commonly wear on their fingers rings that have seal engravings, and on the contrary, as is known, they do not do this for the sake of the seal but for the sake of an ornament, as the engraving is something that pleases the eye and the place of the seal itself is a fine ornament, and they are permitted to go out in them. And similarly with needles, it is known that nowadays they stabilize their head-coverings in their scarves and shawls with needles, whether perforated or not perforated, and they are like the accessories of the garments and it is permitted. Nevertheless, one must warn them not to increase the number of needles except for what they need for stabilizing their head-coverings and no more, and in this they will listen to us since they have no benefit in this.

It is necessary to warn women that they should not carry a needle without an eye whose point and tail have been removed. And it is not only necessary to say this when it was removed on Shabbat, but even if it was removed on the eve of Shabbat, if she did not designate it for her use to place it in her scarves or the like—it is muktzeh, and the details of this law will be explained in siman 308. And there is one who forbids when its point or its tail is removed, but it is not the primary view (Magen Avraham, subsection 15). And a needle with an eye—even if it is whole it is forbidden, as has been explained.

Small girls whose ears are pierced in order to place earrings in them when they grow up, and in order that their ears do not close up from the piercings they place wood splinters in them—they are permitted to go out in them. And even though it is not an ornament, nevertheless it is not a burden, since it is their way to go out thus, and all the more so if they place threads in their ears, which is not like a burden. And these words apply to those that are not colored, but with colored ones—they are forbidden due to the reason of removing and showing. And even though regarding ears we do not decree this, as I wrote in section 10, that is regarding a married woman. But a maiden is not concerned about revealing her ears, and all the more so in places where it is their way to go out with revealed ears as I wrote there (see Magen Avraham subsection 16). And the wording of the Mishnah (65a) is thus: "Small girls go out with threads, and even with wood splinters that are in their ears." And it appears that it is not specifically small girls, for the same law applies even to adult women, for behold the Rambam in chapter 19, law 12 wrote: "Women go out with wood splinters that are in their ears" see there, and perhaps he intentionally changed from the wording of the Mishnah to indicate this, that it is not specifically small girls.

We further learned in the Mishna there: "Arabian women may go out veiled." These are Jewish women in Arabia, and it is the way of Arabian women to be wrapped around their head and their face except for the eyes, and they call this in the Arabic language "re'ulot," and these are the "re'alot" written regarding women's ornaments in Isaiah (Rashi). And in the Tur and Shulchan Aruch, section 21, he wrote that she wraps her entire head except for the face. And the Rambam there wrote: "And with the re'alot that are on their necks or on their garments," and he explained in the Commentary on the Mishnayot that they are like bells or clappers, and in the Aruch he explained like Rashi, see there. And we learned: "And Median women may go out fastened," Jewish women in Media go out fastened, for they wrap themselves in a tallit and a strap hangs from its one edge opposite her neck, and on its second edge she wraps a stone or a nut and ties the strap to the wrap, and the tallit does not fall from her (ibid.). And "porfet" is like hooks, as we translate "purpaya," and anyone who joins one garment to another is called "perifah" (ibid.). And the Mishna concludes that it is not specifically Arabian and Median women, for the same law applies to every person, but the sages spoke of the common reality.

And she may fasten [the cloak] over a nut or over a stone that she designated for this purpose from the eve of Shabbat and they may go out with it, for regarding a stone, designation is effective without a physical act. But over a coin—it is forbidden to fasten on Shabbat, as it is not a vessel for handling for use on a weekday, and designation is not effective for it, and it requires a physical act from the eve of Shabbat or that she went out with it for one hour while it was still day. Therefore, if she fastened it over it from the eve of Shabbat—it is permitted to go out with it on Shabbat, and all the more so if she went out with it for one hour while it was still day. (And the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch did not write this, because going out is impossible without fastening, and consequently there is no need for going out, and delve into this.)

In the Gemara ibid.: "A question was raised to them: May a woman use artifice and fasten [her cloak] over a nut to bring it out to her small son on Shabbat," see there in the Gemara that it remained in doubt. And it appears to me that even though we find artifice even regarding a Torah law, such as using artifice regarding a firstborn and the like—it is different here as it is a conspicuous artifice. And since it remained in doubt, the Rambam, the Tur, and the Shulchan Aruch in section 23 ruled: that if it is to a reshut ha-rabbim—it is forbidden, and if to a karmelit—it is permitted, as is the law in every doubt regarding a Torah law to be stringent and regarding a rabbinic law to be lenient. (And therefore the Gemara ibid. compares it only to the artifice of a fire, because there it is also conspicuous, and it is like a ferry on page 139b: see there.)

It is stated in the Gemara (66b): Our Rabbis taught: One may go out with an even tekumah on Shabbat, which is a stone that pregnant women carry so that they do not miscarry, and in our language it is called "staryn shos." In the name of Rabbi Meir they said: Even with the weight of an even tekumah, where they weighed something against it, and if its weight is like the weight of the stone—this property is also found in it. And not only if she already miscarried, but even lest she miscarry; and not only if she is already pregnant, but even lest she become pregnant and miscarry. And it seems to me that this deals with one who is from a family that miscarries, and it is like a kmi'a in siman 301, section 79, see there; for if not so, how could we permit this? "And provided that it was intended and weighed," meaning the weight of the even tekumah is not that they should take an object and make it like its weight, but rather that it happened of its own accord to be so in its weight. And Abaye inquired: What is the law regarding the weight of a weight? Meaning, if it happened that they weighed the weight of the even tekumah and against it another object and it was found to be like its weight, if it is effective; for even though it is automatically like the weight of the even tekumah, perhaps the property is specifically when they weighed it against the stone itself. And it remained in doubt, and automatically it is forbidden, and perhaps in a karmelit it is permitted, as in the law of the previous section. (And the poskim ruled like Rabbi Meir, because the inquiry of Abaye follows according to him, for according to the first Tanna even with the weight it is forbidden, and all the more so the weight of a weight.)

It is forbidden for a woman to apply rouge to her face on Shabbat, which is a type of dye, due to the prohibition of dyeing, for since this is her manner—it is called dyeing, which is not the case for a man as will be explained at the end of siman 320, and the prohibition is rabbinic (Mishnah 94b). For this reason, she is forbidden to apply kohl to the eyes on Shabbat, and for this reason, she is forbidden to smear dough on her face, for when she removes it the flesh reddens and it is like a type of dyeing. And know that they said thus in the Gemara there: that applying kohl is forbidden due to dyeing, but the Rambam in chapter 23, law 12, wrote that the prohibition is due to writing, see there, and such was his version in the Gemara and so it is in the Aruch.

A woman is forbidden to braid her hair on Shabbat, and there is a rabbinic prohibition of building (95a) in this. And even though one who braids strands in a detached item is liable for weaving, nevertheless, regarding hair it is not considered weaving, and furthermore, it is not destined to endure, as it is meant to be undone (Magen Avraham, subsection 2), but building is forbidden even for temporary building. Consequently, since she is forbidden to braid the hair—likewise she is forbidden to undo her braid on Shabbat, as with all Shabbat labors where building and the destruction of a building are forbidden. And even though for destruction we require "in order to build"—this is according to the Torah regarding the liability of stoning and a sin offering, but rabbinically it is forbidden in all cases. However, she is permitted to part her hair here and there, for it is not certain that through this she will pluck any hair, and since this is so, even if she plucks it is an unintended act. Our teacher, the Rema, wrote in section 26: There are those who forbid parting her hair, that is, to make the "scheitel," and so they conducted themselves to forbid doing so by means of a vessel. But with the finger alone—they conducted themselves to be lenient. Thus far his words. That is to say, the opinion of Rashi (60a, s.v. "u-ve-Shabbat") is that she is forbidden to part her hair on Shabbat, and the Tosafot and all the Rishonim wondered about him what prohibition there is in this, and we have already written this in section 12. To this he comes to resolve the opinion of Rashi, that is, to make the "scheitel," which is that she parts the hair so much that in the middle it appears like a bald spot and she turns the two sides of the hair here and there forcefully by means of a vessel, in the manner that virgins used to do in our times previously, and this must be done by means of some vessel, and therefore one may certainly fear the plucking of hair which is a "pesik reisha." But with her fingers alone—even Rashi admits that it is permitted (so it appears to me).

It is forbidden to comb with a comb on Shabbat, even those made from pig hair, for it is impossible that hairs will not be uprooted, and it is "shearing," which is a primary category of labor; however, it is permitted to scrub and to part with the hand. There are those who wrote that those made from pig hair are not a pesik reisha, and there is a proof for this from Nazir (42a) where the Shas says that according to Rabbi Shimon, a nazir is forbidden from combing hair because he intends to remove the dangling hairs that have not yet completely detached, see there, and it is explicitly explained that it is not a pesik reisha. And it appears to me that this refers to combs from the thin hairs of the pig, for the thick ones certainly pluck hairs, and all the more so with any comb whatsoever—it is a Torah prohibition (and see Magen Avraham subsection 22 what he brought from the Maharibal, and his intention is as I have written, and examine it closely).