I think it’s time to analyze a question in halachah (Jewish law): wristwatches on Shabbat. We’ll come back to that if ruins ruins somebody else’s life now. You need to know what time Minchah (afternoon prayer) is. It’s even the recovery.
Where was it, Chacham Ben Tzion? Perek Kaf-Gimmel (chapter twenty-three)? “Yeah, pet.” Okay. Perek Kaf-Gimmel, halachah—yes, pet. Oh, right away from the beginning: “Ha’im mutar latzet im sha'on yad (wristwatch) lireshut harabbim (public domain)?” Sha'on yad. I mean, if I didn’t have to look inside, what would I say? Sha'on yad—is it a tachshit (ornament)? It’s also a functional tachshit. It might be like a key. Uh-oh. If it’s like a key, I don’t like that. Correct: if it’s like a key, it’s a problem, because the Shulchan Aruch didn’t like the key. I’m just guessing. Let’s see.
“Teshuvah (responsum): sha'on yad ragil”—a regular watch—“ein latzet bo lireshut harabbim,” you may not go out with it into the public domain. Does a regular watch mean a string in a pocket watch? No, a cheap watch. “Im hu sha'on zahav (gold watch), shenir'eh ketachshit,” if it looks like jewelry, “im hu galui venir'eh le'ein kol,” if everybody sees it, you know, it’s a show-off. To show off. “Mutar latzet bo, aval im hu mechuseh asur latzet bo.” Wow! So if you wear it like this, you can’t, but if you wear it like this, you can. Exactly. If you’re a big head, it’s okay; if you’re a humble guy, it’s not good. What kind of Teshuvah is this? And the bottom is the smallest bottom in history.
In Igrot Moshe, he permitted going out with a watch if it is on your body, since it is a malbush (garment). Rav Moshe says it’s a malbush. Does “on his flesh” mean tight? No, it means it’s on his flesh; he’s wearing it. He doesn’t like it, because a watch isn’t made to be worn. Rather, that is the way it is held. The way you hold a watch is on your wrist. What—and you wear your shirt. You wear your shirt on your—well, guess what? A shirt is a malbush. This is not a malbush. He’s saying not everything you wear is a malbush. Like a necklace. All right, that’s an ornament. There you go. You have to be one of two things: a garment or an ornament.
So if you have a watch, let’s say an F-11 Casio, it’s not an ornament, let’s say. It’s not a garment. Rav Moshe says, “No, you’re wearing it.” Fine, so wear it. Again, if I put a belt on this book and strap the book around my—that I also, because I want to read in the reshut harabbim. Again, I’m just trying to say I’m wearing a belt with Masechet Shabbat around it, and I’m wearing Masechet Shabbat. “Oh, you’re wearing it.” Meaning, I turned Masechet Shabbat into a garment? Of course not! Of course not! “No, no, it’s the normal way to carry a watch.” That’s semantics. It’s the normal way to carry a watch. So why can’t I make that the normal way to carry a suit? “No, but that’s a garment.” You have a doubt whether this is a garment? Forget about the ornament. That’s an ornament. Again, it kind of falls into one of two categories. Why is a watch not a garment? You tell me why it is. Not everything you wear is a garment. That’s a kelal (general rule): just because you wear it does not mean it’s a garment. By the way, a ring is not a malbush. A ring is a tachshit.
Very good. Let’s go to eyeglasses. We’ll have to turn them somehow into a garment. You’re right: a question on a question. Once we solve the watch, let’s go to eyeglasses. Chazak uvaruch. But Chacham Ben Tzion contends, “Yeah, I don’t doubt you’re wearing the watch on your wrist. That’s the way you carry a watch.” If it’s expensive, we’ll see. Before you get to expensive, we’re talking about a regular, simple watch. He’s not—he’s holding that that’s not called a malbush. It’s a functional item. It’s a functional item. Again, unless I turn that key into gold, or whatever. You don’t wear a key either. I mean, I put it in a tie clip. You don’t wear a key. But he’s going to say that’s a big chiddush (novel insight): a watch isn’t made to be worn; rather, that is the way it is held. Some things I carry on my neck, some things I carry in my pocket, and this happens to be an item I carry on my wrist.
I hear that you could argue. I’m just trying to give his argument. “Rather, that is the way it is held, and one may permit it only if it is made of gold.” Wow, this is like Jerry Nadkin paid Chacham Ben Tzion for this psak (halachic ruling). “Teshuvah brought to you by William Barthman.” Unbelievable. Somebody sponsored this book? A pocket watch—you know those? A pocket watch is a watch, but now you’re carrying it. That’s a kullah (leniency), but now you’re not wearing it. So the ornament—that’s how you wear the watch. If it’s an ornament, if it’s an ornament, then it’s an ornament. But what if the pocket watch is gold? The problem is you’re carrying it in your pocket. You can’t take a gold watch and put it in your pocket? I can’t put a ring in my pocket either. “Oh, so now I have to wear it.” I can wear an ornament. But that doesn’t mean I can carry an ornament. I can’t put a ring on my hand.
So he comes along and says, “She-derech le'ondo gam letachshit,” meaning that ornaments are worn. He says that with a gold watch, you wear it as an ornament. “Uvilvad shelo sheyehe nir'eh la'ayin”—but it has to be an ornament that people see. “She'az chashiv tachshit, mutar latzet bo.” But if it’s an ornament nobody can see, I don’t know—you put it under your shirt or cover it somehow—then who knows if it’s an ornament? Wow. Rabbotai (my teachers), I hope Chacham Ovadiah argues on this. I mean, you can probably bet on it; it’s going to happen.
Let’s go to Minchat Ahavah first. Ah, Menuchat Ahavah, okay. Wow, Chacham Ben Tzion—take off your watch! We’ll get to all those other kerichot (volumes) you have over there. Wait, is this the one we use? The books—oh yes, here. Kavvanot (intentions), here, whatever that is. Yod Gimmel. Come on, you’re telling me Chacham Ben Tzion is going to stop the watches? “An ornament—$10,000.” $10,000? He didn’t give it a night out? What’s… Calm down. Let’s—no, he didn’t even give us another option. Gold. No, because there are watches you can buy for $6,000 that aren’t gold.
But what was the inyan (matter) of tachshit? I guess it’s a tachshit. It’s inyan of tachshit. I don’t know if it has to be gold mamash (literally), or if the point is that it’s an ornament. He says a watch. A wristwatch. A Metaltel (movable object). I asked the Rav, Chacham Ben Tzion, this when I was—my phone… I think he said that if you’re going to wear it when it’s broken, then you can wear it. Okay, I hear that. That shows you it’s an ornament, like a gold thing you don’t mind wearing. I mean, most watches will be pasul (invalid).
“Gam bechachameinu... Vechen davar shedarko lihyot melubash al guf (body) ha'adam.” Hey, this se'if (paragraph) supports that. It doesn’t say it’s a garment. “Darko sheyehe melubash”—you wear it—“o al echad me'evarav besha'ah shemishtamshim bo.” That’s how you use it. You may go out with it into the public domain on Shabbat if you wear it in its usual way, even though it isn’t made to protect or cover the body like other garments.
“Lefichach mutar la'asirim latzet lireshut harabbim beShabbat ba'azikkim shebiydeihem.” Ah, that’s the handcuffs! Remember, we said handcuffs are okay? Handcuffs aren’t an ornament, and they aren’t a garment, and still Maran permits them. I don’t know—Maran, we learned about handcuffs on Shabbat. He says that’s what Maran writes in Sh.A. Yud-tet. This is for you, Mike. This is Shomrim halachah. In Shomrim, you guys have handcuffs on people all day long. Exactly. So we’re good.
He says here: “Lo yetze adam bitefillin, ve'im yatza eino chayav chatat.” You shouldn’t go out with tefillin (phylacteries) on Shabbat, into the public domain, but if you do, you’re not chayav chatat (liable for a sin offering). Why? There are those who say that Rav Safra said: “Don’t say this is according to the one who says Shabbat is zeman tefillin (time for tefillin).” You might say that you’re not liable for a sin offering because Shabbat is a time for tefillin, and therefore you can wear tefillin on Shabbat. “Ela afilu leman de'amar Shabbat lav zeman tefillin hu,” still you’re not chayav chatat. Why? If it isn’t a time for tefillin, I’m carrying them. Why isn’t he liable for a sin offering? “Derech malbush avida (manner of wearing),” because you’re wearing it derech malbush.
According to the one who says Shabbat is not a time for tefillin, seemingly tefillin on Shabbat is like a burden; you’re carrying it. It’s not an ornament. If you wear tefillin on Shabbat, that’s my ornament? But if you don’t wear tefillin on Shabbat, then it isn’t an ornament or a garment, so that’s it. Rather, since he goes out with them while they’re worn on him, and it’s the usual weekday way to wear these items, it is like a malbush and isn’t considered masui (burden). Even so, it’s prohibited miDeRabbanan (rabbinically) for a different reason: a gezerah (decree) that someone might take them off when he needs to go to the bathroom and might then carry them. We saw the whole decree: he might need to relieve himself and remove them, and then walk four amot (cubits). But for something made to be worn, when there’s no concern that he’ll remove it in the public domain—like a watch, which you don’t take off to go to the bathroom—there should be no rabbinic decree.
What’s his source? Tefillin is his source. Tefillin isn’t a malbush; it’s just derech malbush. Something you always wear during the week in that way—even though it isn’t a garment—that’s what makes tefillin different. I don’t always wear a book during the week, but tefillin is what I wear during the week. That’s the way I wear it, even though it isn’t a garment.
So he comes along and says, “This is the language of Rambam: ‘If he went out with a kami'a (amulet) that is not a mumcheh (expert), he is patur (exempt).’” Back to the amulets: exempt. That’s what we learned—exempt. What does exempt mean? We said an amulet that isn’t proven effective is a problem. So why did Rambam say exempt? “Because he took it out in the manner of wearing a garment.” He wore it that way during the week. “And similarly, one who goes out with tefillin is exempt.”
Rabbeinu Yehonatan miLunil explicitly wrote similarly: even if an amulet isn’t proven effective, he isn’t liable for a sin offering, because he isn’t taking it out in his hand; he’s taking it out in the manner of wearing a garment. It seems clear that Rambam and Me'iri don’t mean that he is exempt because he takes it out in the manner of wearing a garment and not in his hand, as though he took it out in an unusual way. That isn’t the point: it isn’t because of a shinui (change); an amulet is usually taken out hanging from the neck, so he has taken it out in the usual way.
Like my tefillin: they are made to be placed that way, and that is their function, and so on. That still doesn’t explain why you may not initially go out with an amulet on Shabbat. He might take it off. That’s because they were concerned that, since it isn’t a mumcheh, the sick person won’t rely on it and might remove it in the public domain. If it is a mumcheh, he won’t touch it or take it off, because he might get hurt. But if it isn’t, he might take it off and then walk four amot. That’s literally what the Me'iri says. But in a case where that concern doesn’t apply, like with your watch, it is permitted even initially to go out into the public domain, because its function is in the manner of wearing a garment, even though it is neither an ornament nor a garment.
So he agrees with Chacham Ben Tzion on that principle. He’s talking about a watch, not an F-11. It isn’t an ornament, and it isn’t a garment, but it’s no worse than tefillin, which is neither an ornament nor a garment, and you’re exempt for carrying it. The only reason you’re exempt is that they made a decree regarding tefillin, and that decree doesn’t apply to a watch. So, have a good day.
No, kelal, kelal gadol in hotza'ah: “Anything that isn’t worn in the manner of a garment or an ornament, but is customarily worn that way during the week, and there is no decree, is permitted.” In any case… No, that doesn’t do anything. Zero. The fact that it’s functional doesn’t help. It has to be an ornament or a garment. Jewelry, a bracelet. “And I can justify why I have the watch.” That—you can justify anything. Hitler justified the Holocaust! What are we talking about? Did they want you to justify it? We’re talking about an ornament or a garment. The fact that you use it doesn’t help me establish that it’s a garment or an ornament. It might hurt me, no? It hurts me, exactly. It’s a potato peeler. It’s a functional item.
What helps me is one thing: I wear this item during the week like this. So you wear it like this—it’s a new item, a new chiddush. Where does he bring that from? Tefillin. Seemingly, it’s a simple question, and he could be right. Tefillin is not a garment and not an ornament. So if Shabbat is not a time for tefillin, why should he be liable for a sin offering? The Gemara says, “No, patur.” Not because you’re carrying it in an unusual way. That isn’t unusual; that’s the way you carry tefillin. So what’s the reason? Why should he be exempt? Rather, because it’s worn in the manner of a garment during the week, like this. Sunglasses should fall under that: they’re worn in the manner of a garment during the week, like this.
But then, why should it be permitted? There’s a decree about the bathroom. That’s just a decree for tefillin. Give me another item that is worn in the manner of a garment during the week, but isn’t an ornament or a garment. You’re hearing his way out of this? That halachah of tefillin, which most people would say has no application, is going to be your way out for the cheap, junky watch. He permits a junky watch. Unlike Chacham Ben Tzion, it doesn’t have to be a gold watch, because once you say it’s worn in the manner of a garment during the week, any watch—even a junky one. Chacham Ben Tzion wanted to turn it into an ornament, so he said, “It has to be gold.” He’s not saying that. Does he really mean real gold, or does he mean…?
“In any case, since its use is in the manner of wearing a garment, it is like a garment and subordinate to the body of the person carrying it, and it is permitted to go out with it. However, this applies specifically to an item that is also used during the week in the manner of wearing it.” That is only for an item you would wear that way during the week. “That is what Tosafot wrote.” You spoke about it on the way… “But regarding a woman—oh, eizeh pachad, except for the cheerleaders in the city—since tefillin are specifically for a man who is accustomed to wearing them…” What’s that? So if a girl wore tefillin on Shabbat, then perhaps she could be liable for a sin offering, because that is how she wears them every day. The girl? Right, that’s the way she wears them every day. That’s what I’m saying. According to that, that’s another halachah that comes out of here.
Nafka mina (practical difference): regarding Shabbat, if it’s the usual weekday way to wear it, it should be okay to wear it on Shabbat. The chumrah (stringency) of wearing tefillin leads to a leniency about wearing tefillin on Shabbat. Can you wear a watch on your right? Can you wear that…? Sometimes a guy doesn’t care. I don’t know, but I think people don’t think it’s personal; I think that’s the way people wear watches. So it would apply similarly.
Also, Rabbotai, “Therefore, it is permitted for prisoners to go out into the public domain on Shabbat with the restraints on their hands.” Chassidim, what’s that? Prisoners—the handcuffs. Handcuffs aren’t a garment, and they aren’t an ornament. Why did Maran permit them? What was Maran’s reasoning? What did the Mishnah Berurah say there? Wait. Sh.A. Yud-tet. Even so, what? That’s not an issue. No, it has to be a garment or an ornament. That is one problem with what you’re quoting, but I’m saying that’s only part of it. Unless you accept this general rule he just told us, what are handcuffs? They’re not an ornament or a garment.
Why can a prisoner go out with them on Shabbat? How are they worn? The way a prisoner walks—that’s his garment, no? Is it a garment? No. How are handcuffs a garment? What is the pshat (plain meaning) of malbush? That’s review. Let’s review. We need to get our terminology, Rabbotai. It covers his body? Yes, exactly: to cover and protect the body. That’s not what handcuffs do. They restrict his hands from moving. And they aren’t an ornament either. Nobody says, “Look at these gold, gold-plated handcuffs.” Chacham Ben Tzion is going to tell me that? Shomrim needs special Shomer Shabbat (Sabbath-observant) handcuffs, gold, so they’re an ornament for the guy. “Nusach tennis cup.” That’s a watch, you know? What about cufflinks?
Rabbotai, one at a time. Yud-tet: “Someone who is confined with kevalim (chains or shackles) on his legs may go out with them.” That’s it. The guy is a confined prisoner; he goes out with restraints on his legs. Handcuffs or footcuffs, same thing. Foot shackles. Foot shackle—chazak uvaruch. Samech-tet. What kind of terminology do you have there? The Mishnah Berurah says they are considered like a garment, because that is the way he walks. Ah! The way he walks. Very good. You’re saying it’s considered like a garment, not that it is a garment. What makes it like a garment? It’s the way a prisoner has to walk during the week, and the restraints are batel (subordinate) to his guf (body). There’s no chashash (concern) they’ll fall off, because they’re tight.
Once that is the way he carries them during the week, they become—again, nobody said handcuffs are a garment. He’s saying that since this is the usual way, they have the status of a garment and are therefore batel (subordinate) to his body. So what about a watch? That’s good. “Similarly, soldiers may go out wearing a diskit zihui (identification tag) hanging on a chain around their necks”—a dog tag, huh? An ornament? Aside from being an ornament, today kids buy them, and maybe it’s an ornament for a tourist, but it isn’t an ornament for an American. Exactly. Just like a bullet is somehow an ornament for an American, though that’s warped.
The dog tag for the soldier—yeah, Homeland Security ruined that business. That business is over. Go walk into the airport with a bullet around your neck. Yeah, you’ll check it in. Fine. Then they’ll find a bullet in your luggage, take you off, and put you on every list for the rest of your life. You want to take a risk? That doesn’t help today either. So what’s the logic? Is a dog tag an ornament? Absolutely not. Is it a—It’s a license! A guy puts a license on a tag. Are you going to tell me that’s a garment? Certainly not. Is it an ornament? Of course not. Now, a license would be a problem, because I don’t wear a license during the week. But the dog tag he wears during the week, so we’re back to the same calculation.
“The seal worn around the neck of an eved (slave).” We said that’s okay too, even if it’s made of clay. The seal that the eved wore on his garment, and things like that. “Similarly, it is permitted on Shabbat to go out into the public domain wearing a wristwatch fastened around the arm,” 109. I raised this with Heaven’s help in the responsa of Tefilah Le-Moshe, based on what we wrote above. That is also what Shemirat Shabbat Kehilchatah wrote. We have to get that book. When we’re in Jerusalem, we’ll get it. It’s hard to get. They don’t have a book out. I’ll order it if you need it. He cites the Garshaz Oiyerbach, and Yechaveh Da'at also ruled that way. Do I have Yechaveh Da'at, I mean, gimel? It’s probably inside. Yes, definitely inside. Maybe I have all the other five here.
Several later authorities wrote this, and Igrot Moshe also wrote it, me'ikar hadin (according to the strict law). Me'ikar hadin. It could be that Rav Moshe was machmir (stringent), but me'ikar hadin it was—So you have enough Rabbis. The comment made about him in Lev Avraham is not at all compelling. In the responsa of Vayomer Moshe, Mazuz was asked about this and brought the words of Birkei Yosef in the name of Mahari Molcho, who wrote that wearing something in the manner of a garment means that it is the usual way to wear it during the week. He wrote, therefore, that one may be lenient for someone whose usual practice is to wear it during the week.
But Maran, in Shulchan Aruch, paragraph Yud-alef, ruled that an item made both as a tachshit and for tashmish (use) is prohibited. Oh, that’s what I was talking about. A tachshit ve-tashmish: Maran prohibited it because of mar'it ayin (appearance of impropriety). Remember what Maran said about a key that you make out of gold? People will have the appearance of impropriety and say he isn’t wearing it as an ornament; he’s wearing it as a key. If he’s wearing it as a key, it’s a problem. Oh, so that’s a watch! What’s a watch? Like—watch.
“It would seem to say that he took it out for the purpose of use, and generally that means even if it is an ornament worn in the manner of a garment.” Right, even if he wears it every day. No, but from Maran it sounds like even if he wears the key that way every day, it is prohibited on Shabbat. Why should it be prohibited if I just gave you a rule that something customarily worn as a garment every day is okay?
“One can offer a partial explanation: although it is made both as an ornament and for use, people are particular during the week not to go out without it, and it looks to them as if they went out missing something from their clothing; they would be embarrassed in the eyes of those who see them if they did not go out wearing it. In that case, it may be possible to be lenient.” Wow, wow, wow—close call, Rabbotai. His question comes from the tachshit case, the key. Tachshit ve-tashmish. There Maran says it’s a mar'it ayin. Even if it’s an ornament, it sounds like it’s still prohibited. “It seems to say even if it is an ornament worn in the manner of a garment.” That’s what he’s talking about: it’s an ornament, and still it’s prohibited.
“However, one can offer a partial explanation: although it is made as an ornament and for use”—the watch—“since people are particular during the week not to go out without it,” people don’t go out without a watch, “and others see them as though they went out incomplete.” The guy forgets his watch; it’s like he’s missing some of his clothes, like he didn’t get dressed. “And they would be embarrassed in the eyes of those who see them if they didn’t go out wearing it.” Wow. “In that case, it may be possible to be lenient.” Which means he’s stuck. He cornered himself. It’s a problem because an item that is both for use and an ornament is, according to Maran, prohibited to wear on Shabbat because of the appearance of impropriety. In that case of the key, he didn’t let me go out with it. So what’s the difference between a key and this? Like Johnny is saying: you don’t wear a key during the week, and here you do wear a watch during the week.
But he’s saying something else. “Even though there is no clear basis for permitting it, nevertheless, since people who do so would be shogegim (unwitting offenders), it is better that they remain unwitting.” You feel like you’re not dressed? Yes, another point: he’s saying you’re embarrassed not to wear one. He says, “Regarding what one might infer from the Shulchan Aruch, that it prohibits going out with an item made as both an ornament and for use…” The general implication is that even an ornament worn in the manner of a garment—such as putting a key around your neck—is prohibited.
“According to what we have written, there is no difficulty: specifically, when the function of the item is carried out in the manner of wearing a garment, we say it becomes subordinate to the body, like other garments, even like tefillin and an amulet, although they aren’t recognizable as garments and aren’t like the seal of a slave. The same applies to a wristwatch, whose function is carried out when it is on his hand. But if its function is not carried out in the manner of wearing a garment…” He’s learning that the function itself has to be carried out in the manner of wearing a garment.
Wow. That means a watch: that’s how I use it, when it’s on my hand. But a key—I don’t use a key to open the door while it’s on me. When it functions, it isn’t being worn. “Like a key, which must be removed from the body in order to be used; therefore, even if he goes out with it around his neck, it does not become subordinate to his body.” Wow. So it doesn’t become subordinate to the body. That’s a nice distinction. When does it become subordinate to the body? When the use takes place while I’m wearing it. That’s how I use the item; I’m wearing it, so it never comes off me. But with this key, I don’t use it while I’m wearing it. I use it only after I take it off. So I don’t say that it becomes subordinate. A key doesn’t become subordinate to the body.
Even if I normally wear this tie clip every day to work, during the week, on Shabbat it won’t become subordinate if it’s just a key, because I don’t use it while I’m wearing it. “What is the reason for the person who goes out with a sayif (sword)? Even if he wears it as usual during the week, he is liable.” It isn’t considered worn in the manner of a garment, because to use it he must remove it from his belt. Why do we say the sword isn’t considered an ornament? He wears it during the week. Is it an ornament? No, it isn’t an ornament or a garment. But he wears it that way during the week. Yes, but he doesn’t use it while wearing it; he has to take it off. So anything you have to take off to use doesn’t become subordinate. I mean, that’s definitely a distinction.
So again, the use of the item has to be in the manner of wearing a garment. There you go—you’ve got glasses and all the other things. Shemirat Shabbat Kehilchatah wrote this in the name of Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach. It’s a distinction. I don’t know whether he made it up or not, but it’s a distinction. He has to get out of the watch case, because the key case seems to say that even though you wear it during the week, it’s a problem. What do you mean? It’s worn in the manner of a garment all week. What’s the problem? You’re right, it is worn that way all week. But there’s a prohibition in that case because of what? Because a key, even though you wear it all week, doesn’t become subordinate to the body. Why not? Because you have to take it off. But with a watch, you don’t have to take it off. The way you use it is the way you wear it. That’s better. It is a distinction.
However, he says, “There are those who are stringent.” Who’s at the bottom? “See the approbation of our teacher, the Gaon Ne’eman, in the responsa Vazarach Moshe, who says their custom is to prohibit,” according to the rulings of the Gaon Rabbi Moshe Chalfona Kohen, head of the rabbinical court of Jerba, Tunisia. The Gaon Ish Matzliach also practiced that way. In any case, where there is an eruv (Sabbath boundary enclosure) made with a tzurat hapetach (doorway form)—meaning these questionable eruvs we have here—one may be lenient. So again, the eruv might help with another item. For the guys wearing watches, the eruv helped us, Rabbotai. They use it a lot. Exactly. They don’t realize how much. They might start charging us.
“Is it permitted to go out on Shabbat into the public domain, where there is no eruv, wearing a wristwatch?” Dun da da dun dun dun. How many pages is that? Two pages. But here’s the problem. Right away, he brings the source we thought he would bring: “An item made both as an ornament and for use, such as attractive silver keys made like an ornament, is prohibited to take out into the public domain on Shabbat.” Bingo. He brings it right from there. So if you can’t go out on Shabbat with a key, then seemingly a watch is the same.
“It seems that Maran’s opinion follows the first view, which prohibits it, even if his intention is to adorn himself, because we must be concerned about the appearance of impropriety: people who see him will say he took it out for its function.” According to the view of Terumat HaDeshen in the opinion of Maharam meRothenburg, seemingly the same applies to a watch. It’s made to be used to look at the time from time to time, to find out what time it is, so one should be stringent and not go out with it into the public domain.
“However, this can be challenged. Perhaps the prohibition applies specifically to silver keys worn around the neck, since that is not the manner of wearing a garment.” Oh, that’s what we could say: you don’t wear a key around your neck all week. That isn’t the usual way to wear it. “But a wristwatch fastened to his hand is like a garment.” That resembles what the Shulchan Aruch wrote in paragraph Yud-tet, according to the opinions of Rambam and Rabbeinu Tam, that one may go out into the public domain with a signet ring, even though it is made both as an ornament and for use.
Oh, I had a question about that. How are you going to deal with that? It’s functional and also an ornament. How come you don’t say there’s an appearance of impropriety? It isn’t functional on Shabbat; you can’t use it. That’s a good point. Nobody is going to suspect him in that case on Shabbat of taking it out for a seal. He can’t—he can’t. A key is permitted on Shabbat, but a seal isn’t permitted on Shabbat. That’s where the appearance of impropriety could come in. But he says no: there, you’re wearing it on your finger. That’s why it’s okay. It’s the usual way to wear it.
“See also the Shulchan Aruch, which permits going out with a bangle placed on the arm”—a bangle is an ornament—“even though Maran ruled that an ornament intended only for a man may be worn into the public domain, and the rabbis did not decree that he might remove it and show it to his friend; an ornament intended for both men and women is prohibited even for a man, because the rabbis did not distinguish between cases.” The watch is made for both men and women. So how can he wear it? Even if it’s an ornament, any ornament that—today they have men’s watches, men’s bracelets. Okay, back and forth, back and forth.
And we find that the great Sho'el Umeshiv ruled that it is permitted to go out into the public domain with a pocket watch placed in his garment and attached to a gold chain, because it is considered an ornament and isn’t considered a burden. Wow, that isn’t considered carrying because it’s an ornament. But many disagree. Among them is the Gaon from Tzanz, the Divrei Chaim of Sanz. If the watch is in his pocket and covered by his garment, how can you call it an ornament? It isn’t considered an ornament. That’s like putting a ring in your pocket. It is prohibited according to the law to go out into the public domain with it, even if it is attached to a gold chain. The chain is only secondary to the watch, and the watch is hidden.
Similarly, the Gaon Ya'avetz raises the possibility of permitting it on Shabbat because it isn’t muktzeh (set-aside item), since that was the widespread custom—but not if you put it in your pocket. The Mishnah Berurah, in the relevant section of the Shulchan Aruch, wrote at length in his good discussion and proved with evidence that it is prohibited by Torah law to take a pocket watch into the public domain, since it isn’t worn in the manner of a garment. Even with the gold chain, it doesn’t become subordinate to him, and the watch itself isn’t considered an ornament, because its main purpose is to use it to know the time. The proof is that when the watch breaks, the usual thing is to put it away. You don’t wear it if it’s broken; you take it to the watch guy.
Okay, beautiful. So the Mishnah Berurah was also talking about a pocket watch. All right, no problem with that here. In any case, it seems that a wristwatch, which is usually visible along with its chain, is considered an ornament. There is room to permit it because of the band. Even if it is sometimes covered by his sleeve, that makes no difference. It is like a bangle, which is sometimes visible and sometimes not. Vaya'an Eliezer cites this, and great authorities ruled well by permitting it. The Gaon Reb Avraham Shemuel Binyamin Sofer ruled this way, and Reb Azriel Hildesheimer agreed. It seems their intention is a wristwatch that tells the time, which is worn as an ornament and a garment.
But a pocket watch is prohibited. However, the Gaon Reb Ovadiah Hedaya ruled stringently even about a wristwatch, that one should not go out with it. But his words are not compelling, and those who are lenient have what to rely on. Reb Yosef Dushinsky, the rabbi of Edah haCharedit, also ruled leniently and brought proof from the law of a bangle on the arm. A watch fastened to a chain is also considered an ornament. And we don’t take it off; nobody takes it off. The Gaon Reb Moshe Feinstein in Igrot Moshe also ruled leniently according to the strict law.
And in Magen Ba'adi, Chacham Matloub—here’s one of the few times he quotes Chacham Matloub—he ruled simply that it is permitted to go out with a wristwatch fastened to a gold or silver chain. Wow, that was Chacham Matloub. He had to make it an ornament; he turned it into an ornament. He later agreed that it is permitted even when attached to a leather strap. He doubled down and said even a leather band is okay, because the watch itself is an ornament. Now he calls the watch an ornament. The Gaon Reb Yitzchak Dayan, head of the rabbinical court of Chalab, agreed with him. Now what do you want? We have the head of the rabbinical court of Chalab. Close the books. Exactly. What’s the next question?
Once you have Magen Ba'adi, Chacham Matloub, who wrote the responsum, we have Magen Ba'adi here. We have it in the synagogue. You, Max and Shalom, gave us a whole stack of them. We’ll have to look inside Magen Ba'adi. But once he tells me that he went to Chacham Dayan of Chalab, and he permits it—what’s the leniency of Chacham Matloub, that the watch itself is a tachshit? It’s in gold. He wants gold and silver. But then he said even if it’s leather. The band, not the watch itself. The watch itself should be gold. No, he didn’t say that. He said, “He ruled simply that it is permitted to go out with a wristwatch fastened to a gold chain.” Right, a gold bracelet. And then he even said leather is okay, but that doesn’t mean the watch is leather. I know what the watch is. I don’t know that; I understood he meant the band. But what’s the ornament in it? When does a watch become an ornament?
Maybe watches today become ornaments. Listen, today watches are definitely jewelry. How could you doubt it? Watches are men’s jewelry. That’s what they are. Maybe in the old days a watch was more functional; it wasn’t a fashion statement. Today it’s all fashion. The watch business is the jewelry store. Who sells watches? The jewelry guy sells the watches. Usually. It’s a watch store just selling watches. It’s a jewelry store. It’s in the genre of jewelry. It depends which watch. That goes back to Chacham Ben Tzion’s case.
All I’m saying is, it’s possible to call a watch an ornament today. Does it even have to be gold anymore? A TAG Heuer watch that has no gold or silver in it, but the thing is yellow and everything—or a silver Rolex. I mean, that silver is silver. Stainless steel, yeah. That could be an ornament too. It doesn’t have to be gold anymore. All these watches today—you have a designer making the watch. Maybe that’s what makes it an ornament. Maybe a plastic Casio isn’t one, you know, with a calculator watch. Right, the F-11, that’s what I’m talking about—the calculator watch, the F-7. But I don’t know what makes it gold. Is there a law about gold? Why? Can a woman not wear fake earrings on Shabbat today? Costume jewelry? She can’t wear costume jewelry on Shabbat? It looks gold; it looks like it’s an ornament. All right, it’s a question of gold. It’s not a question of gold; it’s a question of whether it’s an ornament or not. I’m just saying, once you get into the category of ornament, you’re home.
Not if it’s also for use. I have to answer that question. Chacham Ben Tzion starts by saying it isn’t an ornament; it isn’t anything, so it has to be gold. I’m answering Michael’s question: I don’t know if it has to be gold. I think even any watch today that costs a few hundred dollars is already an ornament. Wait, I have a vintage Timex worth $20, but I love it. Okay, before we get to an ornament’s relative value, on an ordinary watch a guy gets today—unless it’s a dollar watch, or the 99-cent one he gets in a Chinese store—I think it’s an ornament. Every watch today has a special face, a special… Is that not an ornament?
Now, the problem is with David’s point—whatever Chacham Moshe Levi says. By the way, that’s Chacham Ovadiah’s starting point. Chacham Ovadiah would say it should be prohibited because of the rule about an ornament that also has a function. That rule says it is prohibited because of the appearance of impropriety. So however he gets out of it—putting it around your neck, which is more like wearing it than that—I don’t know exactly what that means. Chacham Levi comes along and gives a different leniency. He says it doesn’t become subordinate to the body, because you don’t use it while it’s attached to your body; you have to take the key off. But the watch is subordinate to the body, because that’s how you use it; it doesn’t come off. That’s a distinction. You like it or you don’t. Yisroel Simcha Frankel doesn’t bring that distinction.
So what is Chacham Ovadiah’s sikum (conclusion)? “It is permitted according to the law to go out on Shabbat into the public domain with a watch attached to his hand, with a silver or gold chain.” Wow. So he also takes that course. Chacham Ben Tzion is Chacham Ben Tzion; he takes that course. “One who is lenient”—because he obviously wants to make it a tachshit—“also has what to rely on with a watch with a leather strap.” “And one who is stringent in all this, may a blessing come upon him.” Wow. But if you have a questionable eruv, you’re okay. He says that if you want a blessing, a blessing will come upon you even with a questionable eruv? You want a blessing? No, he says here: “In any case, even those who are accustomed to be stringent and not to carry on Shabbat should not be lenient about going out with a wristwatch; they do not need to be stringent about this where there is an eruv for the public domain.” Which we have outside. Maybe in Deal, but I don’t know about Brooklyn. I don’t know. They think they have something. That’s the biggest question.
Sha'on she—glasses, don't worry about it. That's the biggest question. This is talking—this is another question. Oh, that's twisting if it's, huh? This is, this is talking about, uh—they don't have watches in the wearing these automatic watches that when you—what do you call that? Self-winding? Self-winding, yeah, that's another halachah. Oh, self-winding is good. Yeah, it's another question, but we'll get to that. “What, what is he saying in Yalkut Yosef? Watch. God forbid, wrist watch.” But the biggest question, are we going to—what do you mean? That is the question. I know, but what’s the question if we’re not… There’s no prohibition to wear a watch if you’re in the house. This isn’t the laws of muktzeh; this is the laws of carrying. What do you mean, no? And also, once you say the public domain—the public domain, the whole subject here is the public domain. I know, but what is the public domain now, he’s saying? I don’t know. Ocean Parkway has to be the classic public domain, no? Call them up. They even—That’s for tourists. 600,000 people. We don’t need 600,000 people. And, by the way, maybe there is one. Who says there isn’t? Who says there isn’t? We don’t need wide streets—wide streets that run through the whole city.
“Here it is forbidden on Shabbat to go out into the street wearing a pocket watch, even if its chain is made of gold and silver, since he is carrying it in his pocket and it is not displayed on his clothing.” Okay, no problem. So if it were displayed—I don’t know, if the guy had a see-through pocket over here. No, if it’s in there, they don’t like it. But if he had a see-through pocket, it’s covered. Okay. I’m just saying the pocket square is permitted. The pocket square is an ornament, but it’s visible; people see it. Would that be a problem?
“However, it is perfectly permissible to wear a gold or silver wristwatch on a watchband and to go out into the street, even though this is the normal way of wearing a bracelet, and a watch is considered an ornament. Although the watch is often covered by one sleeve, this does not pose a problem. According to the strict law, one may go out into the street wearing an ordinary watch with a leather or vinyl band.” Then it gets to the band. “If one lives in an area without an eruv, it is recommended that one purchase a watch with a gold or silver band to wear on Shabbat.” Recommended. And here’s the address on the bottom: “Someone who refrains from going out into the street wearing a silver or gold watch will receive a special blessing from heaven.” Rabbotai, this is a segulah (special merit or remedy) now. Someone who refrains from going out into the street wearing a silver or gold wristwatch will receive a special blessing from heaven. Anybody interested? “You have to have a blessing to buy it, Rabbi.” What? And you have to have a special blessing not to wear it.
Before you get to all the derashot (interpretive talks), he’s bothered by the key. The key bothers him here. What do you prefer? I turn it into an ornament; it’s gold. If it’s gold, it’s usable. It’s called a usable tie, and it’s a key—that’s not your problem. So Chacham Moshe Levi got out of it. Chacham Ben Tzion wasn’t bothered; he holds that if it’s gold, it’s okay. I don’t believe it has to be real gold, because if it’s an ornament, it’s okay. What does Chacham Ben Tzion do with the key case? How does he answer the key case? To me, the most comprehensive answer is Chacham Moshe Levi’s. He gave us a good mahalach (approach). If somebody asked me that question, I have an answer. There’s a difference between something customarily worn during the week, like tefillin, and a key. First of all, it has to be worn in the manner of a garment. Even though it isn’t a garment, if it’s worn that way, it’s okay. But it’s also functional, and that makes it different from a key. I have a way out, at least.
But wait, tefillin has no function. It is worn that way. On the contrary, having no function makes it better. So definitely, like some of Michael’s leather bracelets. What is that? I’m saying it’s a bracelet. That isn’t an ornament. It is an ornament. Why isn’t it an ornament? That’s what you’re saying, yeah. No, an ornament for a man. All right, it’s a type of leather bracelet. It isn’t functional. What do you call it—maybe it’s bigdei ishah (women’s clothing)? Today, maybe… No, they make it for men. You go buy it in a men’s store. They make it for men, but ladies wear it. That’s what they tell you. I’m joking; I don’t know.
I’d like to know how Chacham Baruch wore the key. How did he do it? Yeah. That’s a big question. No, he opened with the key; he never took it off. He flipped it around. You can ask his son; I don’t know, but I remember he never took it off. He flipped the key around and opened the door. That’s a use. He didn’t take it off. Why didn’t he take it off? Would taking it off be porek ol (casting off the yoke)? Are you telling me he made this new insight, Chacham Moshe Levi, that he wore it like a watch? And nobody to'en (argues)? Somebody still argues. Nobody does that. You can ask his son. Did Chacham Baruch wear a watch? I think he wore a watch at certain times. I forget whether he wore one or not. I don’t know, because they used to put the watch next to him. Yeah, but it wasn’t his; they used to put it next to him.
All right, again: if you have a gold watch, you definitely have what to rely on. If you don’t have a gold watch, you have Chacham Matloub and Chacham Dayan from Chalab, and we’ll call it a day. Now, what’s the logic of these rabbis? They’re calling it an ornament. Are they going with the way it’s worn? No, they’re calling it an ornament. It’s jewelry. What do I care what it is? And, by the way, you’re right: you buy a Cartier or a watch with a leather band—is that a tachshit? What do I care what the band is? It’s an ornament. The guy doesn’t show off that watch? “Oh, look at my watch!” He shows it off just as much as he shows off any other watch. The leather band is a—The watch itself is a—So leather, the band too. Go replace that band; it’ll cost you $1,000 for a Cartier band. I’m just saying, it’s a—
All right. Baruch Adonai le'olam amen ve'amen (Blessed is the Lord forever, amen and amen).