166 Perek XV . 112a . ט ט״ו דב יבד

A knot with which one ties a strap to the camel’s nose ring and a knot with which one ties a rope to the ring fixed to the bow of a ship, with regard to liability to bring a sin-offering, there is none; however, there is a rabbinic prohibition. And there are knots that are permitted to be tied on Shabbat ab initio. And which are these? The knot that a woman uses to tie the opening of her robe.

We learned in the mishna: A woman may tie the opening of her robe on Shabbat. The Gemara states: This is obvious, as the knot is meant to be untied and is therefore not permanent. The Gemara explains: It is only necessary to state this halakha in a case where the robe has two lacesB with which to tie the opening. Lest you say that one of them may become void because the woman can remove the garment even with one string, leaving the one not untied a permanent knot, it therefore teaches us that neither knot is consid-ered permanent.

We learned in the mishna: And a woman may tie the strings of her hairnet on Shabbat. The Gemara states: This is obvious. The Ge-mara clarifies the matter: It was only necessary to state this halakha in a case where the hairnet is tied loosely on her head. Lest you say that she sometimes removes it without untying it and the knots remain, the mishna teaches us that a woman is protective of her hair and avoids pulling it out, and therefore she unties the hairnet to avoid damaging her hair.

We learned in the mishna: And it is permitted to tie the straps of a shoe or a sandalB on Shabbat. It was stated with regard to one who untied the straps of a shoe or a sandal: One baraita taught that one who did so on Shabbat is liable to bring a sin-offering; and it was taught in another baraita that one is exempt by Torah law, and it is prohibited to untie those straps ab initio; and it was taught in another baraita that it is permitted to untie these knots ab initio. This is difficult, as there is a contradiction between one statement with regard to a shoe and another statement with regard to the straps of a shoe; and this is difficult, as there is a contradiction between one statement with regard to the straps of a sandal and another statement with regard to the straps of a sandal.

The Gemara explains: The apparent contradiction between one statement with regard to a shoe and the other statement with regard to a shoe is not difficult, as that baraita, which teaches that one is liable to bring a sin-offering, is referring to a shoemaker’s knot, which is permanent as it holds the shoe together. The baraita that states that he is exempt by Torah law and it is prohibited by rab-binic decree is referring to the shoe worn by Sages, as they often tie their shoes loosely so they can easily put on and remove their shoes. The baraita that teaches that it is permitted to tie shoes ab initio is referring to such knots used by the residents of the city of Meĥoza,N who are meticulous in their dress and who tie and untie their shoes every day.

יבד

Perek XVDaf 112 Amud a

טטי ד ו יטטא זממא, ב טטי ד יטטא הא א, ליכ ד הוא חיובא איסטטידא, בה, חיל טין לכת מות אד ויש ש איסוטא – איכ

חי חלו הד טת מ ת ומאי ניהו – וש

אית יטא! לא צטיכא, ד ש ח חלו הד״ “מ תייהו מינ חדא תימא: ד מהו יד דש טי ת ליה

מע לןד טולי מבטיל, א מש ב

טויחא יטא! לא צטיכא ד ש “וחוטי סבכהד״ א לה, ל א ש לב מיש תימא: ד מהו להד טא עטה, ומיש ה חסה על ש אש מע לן ד מש

טיא להד ש

יט הת מט: אית לד״ וסנד מנעל “וטצועות חייב חדא: ני ת ל, וסנד מנעל טצועות אסוט, אבל טוט אידך: ותניא את, חטיא מנעל הד ש חיל ט לכת ותניא אידך מות

ל! נד ל אס יא סנד נעל, ש אמ

חייב תני ד הא יא, ש לא נעל אמ מנעל – אסוט אבל טוט י, כ דאוש ב – את חטדבני מחוזאד ה – ב חל ט לכת נן, מות דטב ב

Two laces – י טי דש :ת

Garment with two laces, like those worn in talmudic times

Sandal – ל -Almost all of the straps on these san :סנדdals are loose and retied every day. The residents of Meĥoza apparently wore sandals similar to these.

Roman noble’s sandals with loose straps

This sandal has one knot that can be untied on its upper part. The rest of the knots are tied by the shoe-maker and are not untied.

Detail of statue with Roman sandal from the talmudic period

The sandal below is not shaped like a foot. If the strap between the toes breaks, the sandal can easily be turned around and worn on the other foot, us-ing what used to be the front of the sandal as the heel. There are more than four ears and four straps on this sandal. The interpretation suggested later in the Gemara is not simply theoretical but relates to an actual sandal.

Sketch of Roman sandal from the mishnaic period

BACKGROUND

Sages and the residents of Meĥoza – נן ובני מחוזא -Some com :טבmentaries explain that these different methods of tying shoes were based on the distance and speed that each of these groups would typically walk. Arab merchants, who walked through the desert,

required shoes and sandals that fit tightly and properly, while the rabbis, who were not typically in such a hurry, wore their shoes more loosely. The people of Meĥoza were pampered and wore shoes that fit loosely (see Me’iri).

NOTES

Perek XV . 112a 167 . ט ט״ו דב יבד

Similarly, the contradiction between one statement with regard to the straps of a sandal and the other statement with regard to the straps of a sandal is not difficult, as that baraita, which teaches that one is liable to bring a sin-offering, is referring to Arab sandals, for which shoemakers tie per-manent knots. And the baraita that teaches that he is exempt by Torah law and it is prohibited by rabbinic decree is referring to strapsN that they, i.e., ordinary people, tie. The baraita that teaches that it is permitted to tie and untie the straps of a sandal ab initio is referring to a sandal shared by two people who alternate going out at different times. They untie and retie the straps each time to ensure that the sandals will fit properly, like the sandals of Rav Yehuda; as Rav Yehuda, brother of Rav Sala Ĥasida, had a pair of sandals, and sometimes he would go out wearing them and sometimes his child would go out wearing them. Rav Yehuda came before Abaye and said to him: What is the ruling in a case of this kind? May I tie the straps on Shabbat? Abaye said to him: Doing so renders you liable to bring a sin-offering.

Rav Yehuda said to him: Now, even if your ruling in that case had been that one is exempt by Torah law but it is still prohibited by rabbinic law, it would be difficult for me, and you say to me that the ruling is that one is liable to bring a sin-offering. Abaye asked him: What is the reason for that difficulty? Rav Yehuda said to him: Because on weekdays too I sometimes go out wearing them and sometimes my child goes out wearing them. Abaye said to him: If so, it is permitted to untie the straps ab initio.

Rabbi Yirmeya was walking after Rabbi Abbahu in a karmelit on Shabbat when the strap of his sandal tore.NH Rabbi Yirmeya said to Rabbi Abbahu: What should I do to it? Rabbi Abbahu said to him: Take a moist reed fit for animal consumption and wrap it around the sandal to fasten it. And the Gemara relates: Abaye was standing before Rav Yosef on Shabbat when the strap of his sandal tore. Abaye said to Rav Yosef: What should I do with it? He said to him: Leave it and do not move it. Abaye said to him: How is this case different from that of Rabbi Yirmeya? He answered him: There the sandal would not have been protected; here it will be protected. Abaye said to him: But it remains a utensil and may therefore be moved on Shabbat, as if I so desire, I can switch itN from the right foot to the left foot and wear it. Rav Yosef said to him: From the fact that Rabbi Yoĥanan explains the matter in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, as will be explained, conclude from it that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda. Therefore, a torn sandal is not considered to be a utensil even if it were switched, i.e., turned around.

The Gemara asks: What is that opinion of Rabbi Yehuda? As it was taught in a baraita: A sandal that was ritually impure, whose two ears that hold the straps or whose two straps (ge’onim) broke,H or whose entire sole was removed, becomes ritually pure because it is no longer a utensil. However, if only one of its ears or one of its straps broke, or if only most but not all of its sole was removed, it remains impure. Rabbi Yehuda says: If the inner strap broke it remains impure, because the outer strap can still be used. If the outer strap broke it is rendered pure. And Ulla, and some say Rabba bar bar Ĥana, said that Rabbi Yoĥanan said: Like there is a dispute with regard to ritual impurity, so too, there is a dispute with regard to Shabbat, i.e., whether or not it is permitted to wear such a sandal on Shab-bat. However, there is no dispute with regard to ĥalitza.

And we discussed this issue: In accordance with whose opinion is the statement of Rabbi Yoĥanan? If you say that it is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, and the baraita is explained as follows: From the fact that it is a utensil with regard to ritual impurity, it is also a utensil with regard to Shabbat, but it is not considered a utensil with regard to ĥalitza. However, didn’t we learn in a mishna: If she removed the left shoe, which was on the right foot of her brother-in-law, her ĥalitza is valid? Ap-parently, a woman can perform ĥalitza even when the shoe is on the wrong foot, and it is not deemed unfit for ĥalitza. Rather, Rabbi Yoĥanan’s opinion must be in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, and is saying the following: From the fact that with regard to impurity it is not a uten-sil, with regard to Shabbat it is also not a utensil. However, that is not the case with regard to ĥalitza, for which it is a utensil.

תני חייב יא; הא ד ל לא ש נד ל אס סנדטוט י, כ טטי אוש דטייעי, ד את – ב חט טטי אינהו, דחומטתא ד אבל אסוט – בי יה ב נ י ב ל ד סנד ה – ב חיל ט לכת מותטב טב יהודה אחוה ד דטב יהודהד ד טי, כ תלי, סנד סלא חסידא הוה ליה ההוא זוגא דיה ב נ י זימנין איהו, יה ב נ י ד זמנין ליה: אמט יי, אב ד יה ל מ אתא ינו יהד אתד ונא מאי? אמט ליה: חייב חט האי ג כ

אסוט״ אבל טוט “ א ת הש ליה: אמט את אמטת לי?! יא לי, חייב חט א שבחול ד ום מש ליה: אמט טעמא? מאי יה אנא, זימנין נ י נמי, זימנין נ י נא בט מות – הכי אי ליה: אמט ינו אד יה ב

הד חיל לכת

הו י אב טב תטיה ד י יטמיה הוה אזיל ב טבליה, סנד ד טצועה אי סי כטמלית, בליה: אמט ליה? אעביד מאי ליה: אמט המה, וכטוך חזי למאכל ב מי לח ד ש ול גטב יוסב, ד יה יי הוה אי מ ויהד אב עילמאי ליה: אמט טצועה, ליה אי סי מאי ב יהד ש ליה: אמט ליה? איעביד מינטט, לא התם יטמיה? י טב מד נא שאי ד הוא, מנא והא מינטט, – הכא מאל! לש מימין ליה ה יכנא – עינא בא יב אל יוחנן י טב מתטץ מד ליה: אמט י טב כ הלכה ה מינ מע ש – יהודה י טב ד

יהודהד

י ת ש ס ו נ ש ל סנד תניא: ד היא? מאי ל יט נ ש או טסיותיו, ת י ת ש או אזניו או מאזניו אחת טהוט, – לו ש ב הכ ל כב הכ טוב ל יט נ ש או טסיותיו, מת אחת נ ס ה אומט: יהודה י טב טמאד – לו שנימית – טמאד החיצונה – טהוטד ואמט אמט חנה ט ב ט ב ה טב ואיתימא א עולך כ טומאה, לענין מחלו ת כ יוחנן: י טבלענין לא אבל ת, ב ש לענין מחלו ת

חליצהד

מאן? ד א יב אל יוחנן[ י ]טב ה: ב והוינן לענין טומאה נן, מד טב א ד יב אילימא אלת נמי מנא הוי, אבל ב מנא הוי – לענין שוהתנן: הוא, מנא לאו ד לחליצה לא חליצתה – ימין ב מאל ש ל ש חלצה יהודה, י טב ד א יב אל א ואל טה! ש כלענין לענין טומאה לאו מנא הוא – מדלא אבל הוא, מנא לאו נמי ת ב ש

מנא הואד לחליצה – ד

Straps – דחומטתא Some explain that the :בGemara interprets both baraitot as referring to the same type of sandal. However, there is a difference between Arabs, who tighten their sandals, and other people, who do not tighten them as much. According to Rab-beinu Ĥananel’s interpretation, a ĥumarta is the leather ring on a sandal into which the straps are inserted and tightened as neces-sary. The residents of Meĥoza would tie their sandals directly onto their feet without any permanent knots.

A sandal in a karmelit – טמלית כ ל ב Some :סנדauthorities are of the opinion that the halakha in this case is contingent on the potential financial loss that may occur. Since a sandal left in a karmelit is not protected, the Sages allowed people to carry it there due to the potential monetary loss. Indeed, the Sages were lenient where carrying on Shabbat is prohibited by rabbinic law and there is po-tential monetary loss. On the other hand, one may not carry a sandal or other object in a courtyard since it is protected there (see Rab-beinu Ĥananel). Other commentaries assert that the issue is not dependent on the ques-tion of monetary loss. Rather, since the shoe is not protected in a karmelit, the individual will not set it aside from his consciousness as he usually would when an object is useless, as he believes he could wear it by fastening it with a reed. However, in a courtyard, where the sandal is protected, he does not plan to wear it by fastening it with a reed and therefore sets it aside from his consciousness (Ra’avad).

I can switch it – ליה The ge’onim :ה יכנא explain that one does not switch the sandal from the right foot to the left, but rather re-verses the broken sandal and wears the back part in the front. Although the straps on one side are torn, one can keep the sandal on by holding the straps with his toes.

NOTES

A sandal whose strap tore – ס ה נ ש ל סנד If the inner strap of a sandal breaks on :טצועתוShabbat, the sandal remains a utensil and it is permitted to carry it. If its outer strap broke, it is no longer considered a utensil and it is prohibited to carry it. If a strap broke in a kar-melit, one may wrap a wet reed fit for animal consumption around the sandal to prevent it from falling off his foot. This is prohibited in a courtyard, where it is protected, in accor-dance with the opinion of Rabbi Abbahu and Rav Yosef (Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 308:15).

A sandal whose two ears…broke, etc. – י אזניו וכופ ת ס ו ש נ ש ל A ritually impure :סנדsandal whose two ears, heel, front, or sole broke becomes pure if it no longer holds most of the foot (Rambam Sefer Tahara, Hilkhot Ke-lim 7:12−13).

HALAKHA

168 Perek XV . 112b . :ט ט״ו דב יב

The Gemara asks: Say that we said that if she removed the left shoe which was on the right foot,H her ĥalitza is valid, that applies only in a case where it is fit as a utensil for its usual purpose, i.e., it can be used as footwear. However, here it is not fit as a utensil for its usual purpose, as Rabbi Yehuda said: If the outer strap of the sandal tore, the sandal is rendered ritu-ally pure. Apparently, according to Rabbi Yehuda, it is not a utensil. Rabbi Yoĥanan’s statement is difficult according to both opinions. The Gemara answers: Actually, his opinion is in ac-cordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda; however, emend his statement and say that Rabbi Yoĥanan said: And this is the halakha with regard to ĥalitza as well. And this teaches us that when we say that if she removed the left shoe that was on the right foot her ĥalitza is valid, that is only in a case where

it is fit as a utensil for its usual purpose, i.e., it can be used as footwear. However, here it is not fit as a utensil for its usual purpose.

The Gemara asks: Did Rabbi Yoĥanan in fact say that the ha-lakha is in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda, who says that if the outer strap broke the sandal becomes pure? Didn’t Rabbi Yoĥanan say: The halakha is in accordance with an unattrib-uted mishna? And we learned in a mishna: A sandal that be-came ritually impure with impurity imparted by the treading of a zav, and one of its ears broke and he repaired it,H this sandal is still impure with ritual impurity imparted by treading,N since a broken ear does not render the sandal useless and it remains a utensil. If the second ear broke and he repaired it, it is ritu-ally pure in the sense that it no longer renders other objects ritually impure in the same way a vessel that became a primary source of ritual impurity by means of impurity imparted by treading does, since when both ears tear it is no longer a utensil. However, it is itself ritually impure with ritual impurity im-parted by treading due to contact with a vessel that is impure, i.e., contact with itself. Since the sandal now has only one torn ear, it is still considered a utensil which is capable of contracting impurity, and it is as if it contracted impurity from itself in its previous state. Is this statement not an indication that there is no difference whether it was the inner strap or the outer strap that broke, as no single ear that breaks terminates the sandal’s use? This contradicts Rabbi Yoĥanan’s statement.

The Gemara rejects this: No, this mishna is referring specifi-cally to the inner strap. When the inner strap breaks, even Rabbi Yehuda concedes that the sandal remains ritually impure. The Gemara asks: However, if the outer strap breaks, what is the halakha? Is it that the sandal is pure? If so, instead of teach-ing: If the second ear broke and he repaired it, it is ritually pure in the sense that it no longer renders other objects ritu-ally impure as a vessel that became a primary source of ritual impurity by means of impurity imparted by treading; however, it is itself ritually impure due to contact with a vessel that is impure due to contact with an object that became ritually im-pure with impurity imparted by treading, let him make a dis-tinction within the case itself: In what case was this statement said? In a case where the inner strap breaks. However, if the outer strap breaks, the sandal becomes ritually pure. Rav Yitzĥak ben Yosef said: Let our mishna be interpreted as refer-ring to a sandal that has four ears and four straps, and it can be explained that when it says that the second one broke, it was referring to the second outer one. It is worthwhile to interpret it this way so as not to break, i.e., contradict, Rabbi Yoĥanan’s statement.N

ימין מאל ב ל ש אמטינן חלצה ש אימט דתיה למיל ד היכא טהד ש כ חליצתה מנא לאו תיה למיל הכא הוא, מנא נ ס ה יהודה: י טב אמט הא ד הוא; מנא לאו אלמא טהוט, – החיצונה יהודה, י טב ד א יב אל לעולם הוא! לן מע מש והא לחליצהד וכן אימא: ל ש ב מאל ש ל ש חלצה אמטינן כי ד

טה – היכא ש ימין חליצתה כ

NOTESRabbis and the residents of Meĥoza – ובני מחוזא נן -Some com : טבmentaries explain that these different methods of tying shoes were based on the distance and speed that each of these groups would typically walk. Arab merchants, who walked through the desert, re-quired shoes and sandals that fit tightly and properly, while the rabbis, who were not typically in such a hurry, wore their shoes more loosely. The people of Meĥoza were pampered and wore shoes that fit loosely (see Me’iri).

Straps – דחומטתא Some explain that the Gemara interprets both :בbaraitot as referring to the same type of sandal. However, there is a difference between Arabs, who tighten their sandals, and other people, who do not tighten them as much. According to Rabbeinu Ĥananel’s interpretation, a ĥumarta is the leather ring on a sandal into which the straps are inserted and tightened as necessary. The residents of Meĥoza would tie their sandals directly onto their feet without any permanent knots.

A sandal in a karmelit – טמלית כ ב ל Some authorities are of the :סנדopinion that the halakha in this case is contingent on the potential financial loss that may occur. Since a sandal left in a karmelit is not protected, the Sages allowed people to carry it there due to the poten-tial monetary loss. Indeed, the Sages were lenient where carrying on Shabbat is prohibited by rabbinic law and there is potential monetary loss. On the other hand, one may not carry a sandal or other object in a courtyard since it is protected there (see Rabbeinu Ĥananel). Other commentaries assert that the issue is not dependent on the question of monetary loss. Rather, since the shoe is not protected in a karmelit, the individual will not set it aside from his consciousness as he usually would when an object is useless, as he believes he could wear it by fastening it with a reed. However, in a courtyard, where the sandal is protected, he does not plan to wear it by fastening it with a reed and therefore sets it aside from his consciousness (Ra’avad).

I can switch it – ה יכנא ליה: The ge’onim explain that one does not switch the sandal from the right foot to the left, but rather reverses the broken sandal and wears the back part in the front. Although the straps on one side are torn, one can keep the sandal on by holding the straps with his toes.

HALAKHAA sandal whose strap broke – ס ה טצועתו נ ל ש If the inner strap :סנדof a sandal breaks on Shabbat, the sandal remains a utensil and it is permitted to carry it. If its outer strap broke, it is no longer considered a utensil and it is prohibited to carry it. If a strap broke in a karmelit, one may wrap a wet reed fit for animal consumption around the sandal to prevent it from falling off his foot. This is prohibited in a courtyard, where it is protected, in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Abbahu and Rav Yosef (Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 308:15).

A sandal whose two ears…broke, etc. – י אזניו וכופ ת ס ו ש נ ל ש :סנדA ritually impure sandal whose two ears, heel, front, or sole broke becomes pure if it no longer holds most of the foot (Rambam Sefer Tahara, Hilkhot Kelim 7:12−13).

She removed her left shoe, which was on the right foot – חלצה ימין ב מאל ל ש ,If, when a woman performed the ritual of ĥalitza :שher brother-in-law was wearing the left shoe on his right foot, the procedure is still valid (Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 168:22 in Rema).

BACKGROUNDTwo laces – י טי דש :ת

A woman’s garment from the period of the Talmud with two laces used to close it

Sandal – ל Almost all of the straps on this sandal are loose and :סנדtied every day anew. The residents of Meĥoza apparently wore sandals similar to this one.

Roman noble’s sandal from the talmudic period This sandal has one knot that can be untied on its upper part. The

rest of the knots are tied by the shoemaker and are not untied.

Roman sandal from the talmudic period

The shape of this sandal does not resemble a foot. If the strap between the toes breaks, the sandal can easily be turned around and worn on the other foot, using what used to be the front of the sandal as the heel. There are more than four ears and four straps on this sandal. The interpretation suggested later in the Gemara is not simply theoreti-cal but relates to an actual sandal.

Roman sandal from the mishnaic period

יב:

Perek XVDaf 112 Amud b

– הכא אבל הוא, מנא תיה למיל דתיה לאו מנא הואד למיל

י טב והאמט הכי? יוחנן י טב אמט ומי ל נה, ותנן: סנד סתם מש יוחנן: הלכה כנה – טמא ס ה אחת מאזניו ותי נ שנה – טהוט ותי ניה ש )נ ס ה מדטס, ע מדטס(, א מדטס אבל טמא מג טמ מלנא נימית, ולא ש נא מאי לאו – לא ש

חיצונה?

חיצונה אבל ו אד ד נימית לא, תני “נ ס ה מאי – טהוט? אי הכי, אדאבל דטס המ מן טהוט נה ותי ניה שה מ דידה; ב ע מדטס״ ני לוג ב טמא מגנימית, ס ה נ ש – אמוטים בטים דיצח טב אמט טהוט! – חיצונה אבל יש לו ל ש סנד נתנו ב הא מש ן יוסב: ת בלא טסיותים, ש ע ת ע אזנים ואטב אטב

י יוחנןד ל טב בטיו ש בוט ד לש

She removed the left shoe which was on the right foot – ימין מאל ב ל ש If, when a woman performed the ritual :חלצה שof ĥalitza, her brother-in-law was wearing the left shoe on his right foot, the procedure is still valid (Shulĥan Arukh, Even HaEzer 169:22 in the comment of the Rema).

HALAKHA

A sandal that one of its ears broke and he repaired it, etc. – נה וכופ ס ה אחת מאזניו ותי נ ל ש -A sandal that became ritu :סנדally impure by treading, whose ear was broken and then re-paired, retains the impurity. If the second ear also broke and was repaired, the sandal becomes ritually pure, because it is no longer the same sandal. However, it is still impure due to contact with the ritual impurity imparted by treading (Rambam Sefer Tahara, Hilkhot Kelim 7:12).

HALAKHA

Impurity imparted by treading [midras] – טמא מדטס: Rashi and Tosafot discuss this matter. It is unclear how ritual impurity imparted by treading is a factor. Some commentaries explain that the sandal was initially rendered impure in two ways: First, from the ritual impurity imparted by treading, and second, from the impurity contracted through contact with an object that is ritually impure by treading. Initially, the impurity im-parted through contact with an object that is ritually impure by treading is insignificant in the face of the more severe impurity imparted by treading itself. However, once the utensil is voided to the point that it can no longer become impure with ritual im-purity imparted by treading, the previous impurity still remains. Others posit that this makes sense only with regard to the other ear. That ear was pure before it was included in the sandal, and it subsequently contracted impurity through contact with an object that is ritually impure by treading, thereby rendering the entire sandal impure (see Rashba).

So as not to break Rabbi Yoĥanan’s statement – בוט לא לש שי יוחנן ל טב בטיו ש According to Rabbi Yitzĥak ben Yosef, Rabbi :דYoĥanan’s statement does not correspond with the simple understanding of the mishna. However, since his opinion can be emended and interpreted differently, the Gemara does so in deference to Rabbi Yoĥanan (Adderet Eliyahu).

NOTES

Perek XV . 112b 169 . ט ט״ו דב יב:

When Ravin came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he related that Rav Ĥanan bar Abba said that Rav said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda. And Rabbi Yoĥanan said: The halakha is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda. The Gemara asks: And did Rabbi Yoĥanan actually say this? From the fact that Rabbi Yoĥanan provided an explanation in accordance with the opin-ion of Rabbi Yehuda, conclude from it that he holds that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda. The Gemara an-swers: They are different amora’im who made their statements in ac-cordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yoĥanan.

The Gemara cites another discussion related to the previous halakha. We learned there in a mishna in tractate Kelim: All ritually impure wooden utensils belonging to ordinary homeowners become pureH through breaking the utensil if they have holes the size of pomegran-ates. Ĥizkiya asked: What is the halakha when a utensil was perfo-rated with a hole large enough for an olive to emerge, and he sealed it, and then it was perforated again with a hole large enough for an olive to emerge, and he sealed it, and this went on until the total area of all the holes completed a space large enough for a pomegranate to emerge? In other words, do we say that because the sum of the areas of all the holes adds up to the size of a pomegranate, the utensil is pure, or do we say that since the previous hole was filled before the next hole was formed, the utensil remains ritually impure?

Rabbi Yoĥanan, his student, said to him: Master, you taught us that with regard to a sandal that became ritually impure by impurity im-parted by the treading of a zav, and one of its ears broke and he re-paired it, this sandal remains ritually impure with impurity imparted by treading. If the second ear broke and he repaired it, the sandal is ritually pure in the sense that it no longer renders other objects ritu-ally impure in the same way a vessel that became a primary source of ritual impurity by means of impurity imparted by treading does. How-ever, it is itself ritually impure with ritual impurity imparted by tread-ing due to contact with a vessel that is impure, i.e., contact with itself. And we said to you: What is different when the first ear breaks that the sandal remains impure? It is because the second one is intact. So too, when the second ear breaks, the first one is repaired, and there is only one torn ear.

And you said to us in this regard that the reason the sandal is pure is because a new face has arrived here.N The legal status of the sandal with the two repaired ears is not that of the original sandal; it is a new sandal. Here too, with regard to a utensil that was perforated several times and sealed each time, let us say with regard to the sandal as well that a new face has arrived here, and it is ritually pure because the repaired sandal is a new entity and not the original sandal.

Ĥizkiya was so impressed by Rabbi Yoĥanan’s comment that he ex-claimed about him: This is not a human being, but an angel. Some say that he said: This is an ideal human being. On a similar note, Rab-bi Zeira said that Rava bar Zimuna said: If the early generations are characterized as sons of angels, we are the sons of men. And if the early generations are characterized as the sons of men, we are akin to donkeys. And I do not mean that we are akin to either the donkey of Rabbi Ĥanina ben Dosa or the donkey of Rabbi Pinĥas ben Yair, who were both extraordinarily intelligent donkeys;N rather, we are akin to other typical donkeys.

א אמט ט אב י אתא טבין אמט טב חנן ב כי יוחנן אמט: י יהודה, וטב טב טב: הלכה כי יוחנן י יהודהד ומי אמט טב טב אין הלכה כא יב אל יוחנן י טב מתטץ מד והא הכי? יהודה י טב כ ה מינ מע ש יהודה, י טב דא יב ואל נינהו, אמוטאי ליה! סביטא

י יוחנןד טב ד

יעוטן ים – ש עלי בת לי ב ל כ נן התם: כ תמוציא ב כ י( חז יה: ני עי )טב טמוניםד ב כזית, מוציא כ ב וני וחזט וסתמו, זית, טימון, למוציא לימו הש ש עד וסתמו,

מהו?

ל נית לנו “סנד י, ש י יוחנן: טב אמט ליה טבטמא – נה ותי מאזניו אחת ס ה נ שמן נה – טהוט ותי ניה ש נ ס ה מדטס, ע מדטס,״ ואמטינן דטס אבל טמא מג המ יימא הא ד – טאשונה נא ש מאי לך:

נה טאשונה! ניה נמי – מת ניה, ש ש

או לכאןד נים חדשות ב ואמטת לן עליה: או לכאןד נים חדשות ב הכא נמי –

א איכ אינש! ט ב ין ד לית עליה: טי י זיטא ט אינש! אמט טב ין ב גון ד אמטי: כ דני ב זימונא: אם טאשונים ט ב אמט טבא ים, ואם טאשונים ני אנש מלאכים – אנו בחמוטו חמוטיםד ולא כ ים – אנו כ ני אנש בנחס י טב ל וש דוסא ן ב חנינא י טב ל ש

אט חמוטיםד ש א כ ן יאיט, אל ב

Purity of a homeowner’s utensils – לי כ טהטת ים עלי בת To purify a utensil made out of wood :בor bone, one must perforate it with a hole large enough for a pomegranate to pass through it. If the hole is large enough for an olive to emerge and the hole is subsequently sealed, and then the utensil is perforated again and sealed again, and this process is repeated until the aggregate size of the holes is large enough for a pomegranate to emerge, the utensil is deemed pure. This is the case even though all the holes are now sealed, be-cause it is considered a new utensil, in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yoĥanan (Rambam Sefer Tahara, Hilkhot Kelim 6:2).

HALAKHA

A new face has arrived here – או לכאן נים חדשות ב : A new face is a halakhic phrase used in various contexts. With regard to the halakhot of impurity, the phrase refers to a case where a utensil is repaired or altered in a manner that confers on it a new legal status. Although these alterations were made at

different times, their effect is the same as if they were made together, as the end result is that it is not the same sandal as it was before.

The Sages’ donkeys – ל חכמים The Gemara teaches :חמוטיהם ש

that these donkeys knew their masters well and refrained from eating stolen food or produce that was not tithed. Due to their uncommon level of understanding, these animals are occasion-ally mentioned in the Gemara as examples of creatures with unusual aptitude.

NOTES

170 Perek XV . 113a . ט ט״ו דב יגד

And we learned in the mishna: It is permitted to tie the spouts of wine or oil jugs.B The Gemara says: This is obvious. The Gemara explains: It is only necessary to teach this halakha in a case where it, the jug, has two ears, i.e., two spouts. Lest you say: One of them, he voids it conse-quently defining the knot on that opening permanent and therefore prohibited, it teaches us that this is not the case.

We also learned in the mishna that it is even permitted to tie a garment to cover a pot of meat. The Gemara says: This is obvious. The Gemara ex-plains: It is only necessary to teach this halakha a case where it has a string with which one could open a flap and empty the food. Lest you say that since a single opening usually suffices he voids the knot with which he ties the garment, it teaches us that this is not the case.

We also learned in the mishna that Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov says: One may tie a rope across an entranceH before an animal so that it will not go out. The Gemara says: This is obvious. The Gemara explains: It is only necessary to teach this halakha in a case where the entrance has two ropes. Lest you say

that one of the knots one voids, because he can enable the animal to go out, albeit with difficulty, after untying one knot, therefore, it teaches us that both are considered temporary knots, and it is permitted to tie them. Rav Yosef said that Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov. Abaye said to Rav Yosef: If you rule the halakha in accordance with his opinion, does that mean, by inference, that the Rabbis disagree, or perhaps is there no dispute and everyone accepts the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov? Rav Yosef said to him: What difference is there to you whether or not the Rabbis disagree? In either case, the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov. Abaye answered Rav Yosef using a folk expression: Is it simply learn the lesson, let it be like a song? In other words, is it sufficient to simply parrot the halakhic ruling? Rather, it is necessary to examine the issue to understand it, even if it does not yield a practical halakhic difference.

mishna One may tie a bucket with a beltH on Shabbat, as he will certainly not leave it tied to the bucket, and

therefore it is not a permanent knot. But one may not tie a bucket with a rope. Rabbi Yehuda permits doing so. Rabbi Yehuda stated a principle:N With regard to any knot that is not permanent, one is not liable for tying it.

gemara We learned in the mishna that according to the first tanna, it is prohibited to tie a rope to a buck-

et on Shabbat, and Rabbi Yehuda permits doing so. The Gemara asks: A rope of what kind? If you say it is referring to a standard rope, does Rabbi Yehuda permit doing so? It is a permanent knot. Rather, it is referring to a weaver’s rope; since the weaver needs it for his work, he will untie it after Shabbat. The Gemara asks: Is that to say that the Rabbis hold that we issue a decree prohibiting a weaver’s rope due to a standard rope, and Rabbi Yehuda holds that we do not issue a decree?

יטא! לא צטיכא, ש מןד״ “ונודות יין ושתימא: ד מהו אוניד י טת ת ליה אית ד א לה, ל מבט טולי ב ייהו מינ חדא

מע לןד מש

יטא! לא צטיכא, ש טד״ ש ל ב “ דיטה שטולי תימא: ב לאכאד מהו ד אית לה ש ד

מע לןד ל לה, א מש מבט

טה אומט וש יע ב ן ב אליעזט י “טבלה אית ד צטיכא, לא יטא! ש כופד״

תימא: י איסטיד מהו ד טת ת

NOTESImpurity imparted by treading [midras] – טמא מדטס: Rashi and To-safot discuss this matter. It is unclear how ritual impurity imparted by treading [midras] is a factor. Some commentaries explain that the sandal was initially rendered impure in two ways: First, from the ritual impurity imparted by treading, and second, from the impurity contracted through contact with an object that is ritually impure by treading. Initially, the impurity imparted through contact with an object that is ritually impure by treading is insignificant in the face of the more severe impurity imparted by treading itself. However, once the utensil is voided to the point that it can no longer become impure with ritual impurity imparted by treading, the previous impurity still remains. Others posit that this makes sense only with regard to the other ear. That ear was pure before it was included in the sandal, and it subsequently contracted impurity through contact with an object that is ritually impure by treading, thereby rendering the entire sandal impure (see Rashba).

So as not to break Rabbi Yoĥanan’s statement – בטיו ד בוט לא לש שי יוחנן טב ל According to Rabbi Yitzĥak ben Yosef, Rabbi Yoĥanan’s :שstatement does not correspond with the simple understanding of the mishna. However, since his opinion can be emended and interpreted differently, the Gemara does so in deference to Rabbi Yoĥanan (Ad-deret Eliyahu).

A new face has arrived here – או לכאן נים חדשות ב : A new face is a halakhic phrase used in various contexts. With regard to the halakhot of impurity, the phrase refers to a case where a utensil is repaired or altered in a manner that confers on it a new legal status. Although these alterations were made at different times, their effect is the same as if they were made together, as the end result is that it is not the same sandal as it was before.

The Sages’ donkeys – ל חכמים The Gemara teaches that :חמוטיהם שthese donkeys knew their masters well and refrained from eating stolen food or produce that was not tithed. Due to their uncommon

level of understanding, these animals are occasionally mentioned in the Gemara as examples of creatures with unusual aptitude.

HALAKHAPurity of a homeowner’s utensils – ים עלי בת לי ב To purify a :טהטת כutensil made out of wood or bone, one must perforate it with a hole large enough for a pomegranate to pass through it. If the hole is large enough for an olive to emerge and the hole is subsequently sealed, and then the utensil is perforated again and sealed again, and this process is repeated until the aggregate size of the holes is large enough for a pomegranate to emerge, the utensil is deemed pure. This is the case even though all the holes are now sealed, because it is considered a new utensil, in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yoĥanan (Ram-bam Sefer Tahara, Hilkhot Kelim 6:2).

A sandal that one of its ears broke and he repaired it, etc. – ל סנדנה וכופ ס ה אחת מאזניו ותי נ A sandal that became ritually impure by :שtreading, whose ear was broken and then repaired, retains the impurity. If the second ear also broke and was repaired, the sandal becomes ritually pure, because it is no longer the same sandal. However, it is still impure due to contact with the ritual impurity imparted by treading (Rambam Sefer Tahara, Hilkhot Kelim 7:12).

Tying a rope at the entrance – תח יטת חבל ב One may tie a rope : שacross an entrance before an animal on Shabbat so that it cannot escape. It is also permitted to tie the rope to both sides of an entrance, and there is no concern that one might leave one of the rope ends tied permanently. This is according to Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov, whose opinions are always adopted as halakha (Rambam Sefer Zemanim, Hilkhot Shabbat 10:3; Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 317:6).

BACKGROUNDLeather jug – נאד: Leather jugs were made from whole hides taken from different types of animals. These jugs were used for many pur-poses, and were especially useful for carrying objects and food items.

When the jug was used for liquids, such as water, wine or oil, care was taken to remove the animal’s hide intact, and they would not remove the hide of the legs. A spout, usually fashioned from a hollow reed tube, was inserted into one of the legs. This type of jug had only one spout, or ear, in the language of the Talmud. However, if an opening was created where the hide of the leg had been, it becomes a jug with two spouts.

Leather jug

יגד

Perek XVDaf 113 Amud a

מע טולי מבטיל, א מש ייהו ב חדא מינלןד אמט טב יוסב אמט טב יהודה אמט ן יע בד י אליעזט ב טב מואל: הלכה כ ש ליגי? לל ד יי: הלכה – מכ אמט ליה אבאמט ה? מינ לך נ א מאי ליה: אמט

הא?! מוט זמוטתא ת מטא ג ליה: ג

ס יא, אבל לא לי ב טין ד מתניפ ושי לל אמט טב יטד כ י יהודה מת חבל, טב ב – יימא ל ש אינו ש ט ש ל כ יהודה:

אין חייבין עליוד

חבל לימא אי מאי? ד חבל גמפ ט ש יט?! מת יהודה י טב – עלמא דיד גטד ד חבל א אל הוא! יימא ל שי גטד זטינן חבל ד נן סבטי: ג טב למימטא, דסבט: יהודה י וטב עלמא, ד חבל אטו

זטינן? לא ג

Jug – נאד: Jugs were generally made from whole hides taken from different types of animals. These jugs were used for many purposes, and were es-pecially useful for carrying objects and food items. When the jug was used for liquids, such as water, wine or oil, care was taken to remove the animal’s hide intact, and they would not remove the hide of the legs. A spout, usually fashioned from a hol-low reed tube, was inserted into one of the legs. This type of jug had only one spout, or ear, in the language of the Talmud. However, if an opening was created where the hide of another leg had been, it becomes a jug with two spouts.

Leather jug

BACKGROUND

Tying a rope at the entrance – תח ב יטת חבל One may tie a : שrope across an entrance before an animal on Shabbat so that it cannot escape. It is also permitted to tie the rope to both sides of an entrance, and there is no concern that one might leave one

of the rope ends tied permanently. This is according to Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov, whose opinions are always adopted as ha-lakha (Rambam Sefer Zemanim, Hilkhot Shabbat 10:3; Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 317:6).

HALAKHA

Rabbi Yehuda stated a principle – י טב לל אמט כ Tosafot comment on the difficulty that :יהודהarises from the proximity between Rabbi Yehuda’s principle and his previous statement. The Ritva explains that Rabbi Yehuda’s previous statement relates to the statement of Rabbi Meir in a pre-ceding mishna that one is not liable on Shabbat for tying a knot that can be untied with a single hand. Rabbi Yehuda disputes this assertion and establishes a different criterion to distinguish be-tween a knot that is permitted and a knot that is prohibited on Shabbat.

NOTES

A bucket with a belt – ס יא לי ב ,On Shabbat :דone may tie a belt to a bucket that is permanently attached to a well. It is certainly a temporary knot, because one will untie the belt after Shabbat to use it to secure a garment, which is not the case with a rope. One may tie even a rope to a bucket that is not permanently attached to a well, in ac-cordance with the mishna and the interpretation of Tosafot (Rambam Sefer Zemanim, Hilkhot Shab-bat 10:3; Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 317:4).

HALAKHA