For about a decade, the issue of the maidservant's veil has been the focus of scholarly circles and, unfortunately, of the hostile media, which has used it as a means to negate the veil for women, and has undermined this jurisprudential certainty of all Islamic schools. In this article, for the first time, an attempt has been made to examine this issue using authentic Shia narrational and jurisprudential texts using a library method and a case study of the maidservant's hair veil, and since, unfortunately, this issue has not had a specific title in jurisprudential and narrational books, the narrations on this issue have been neglected by writers and researchers. After examining 27 authentic jurisprudential works (mentioned in the appendix), unfortunately, none of these narrations have been used in these books to prove that the veil is not obligatory for maidservants. Another point that was examined in this article is that the lack of obligation of hijab for maidservants is not accompanied by a break in the philosophy of hijab - which is to maintain modesty, control sexual corruption, and protect the family - but rather this ruling conveys the comprehensiveness of the religion of Islam. Therefore, by examining the narrations and sayings of the jurists, it was concluded that hair hijab is not obligatory for maidservants; but at the same time, it was proven that just as there is a reason and philosophy for hijab in general, there is another logical reason and philosophy for not wearing hijab for old women and maidservants, and these two are not in conflict with each other; rather, it conveys in a way the comprehensiveness of Islam and attention to various strata of society, and it also proves the Shariah of ease and forgiveness.