Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

June 26, 2020 | 讚壮 讘转诪讜讝 转砖状驻

Masechet Shabbat is sponsored in memory of Elliot Freilich, Eliyahu Daniel ben Bar Tzion David Halevi z"l by a group of women from Kehilath Jeshurun, Manhattan.

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

Shabbat 112

Today’s daf is sponsored by Eli and Karen Wilchek in memory of Oz Wilchek, z”l. And by Dena Dena and Mark Levie and family in honor of Dena鈥檚 father, Rabbi Avi Weiss’s birthday. Rabbi Weiss is a pioneer for women鈥檚 learning and a true role model for am Yisroel. May he continue teaching in good health for many more years to come.聽

Which knots can one tie on Shabbat, which are forbidden by rabbinic law and which by Torah law? The gemara goes over the cases in the mishna that are permitted and explains why each needed to be stated and wasn’t obvious. The gemara brings two cases where someone’s shoe tore on Shabbat and the law was different in each case – why? Is the shoe considered muktze if the outer strap breaks since even if one fixes it, one may be embarrassed to walk around with a noticeable fix? If one can switch left and right shoes (in those days shoes were symmetrical), why would it matter if it were the outer or inner one as one can switch it to the other foot and it will be on the inside? According to whom in this debate does Rabbi Yochanan hold?

拽讬讟专讗 讚拽讟专讬 讘讝诪诪讗 讜拽讬讟专讗 讚拽讟专讬 讘讗讬住讟专讬讚讗 讞讬讜讘讗 讛讜讗 讚诇讬讻讗 讛讗 讗讬住讜专讗 讗讬讻讗 讜讬砖 砖诪讜转专讬谉 诇讻转讞讬诇讛 讜诪讗讬 谞讬讛讜 拽讜砖专转 诪驻转讞讬 讞诇讜拽讛:

A knot with which one ties a strap to the camel鈥檚 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.

诪驻转讞 讞诇讜拽讛: 驻砖讬讟讗 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 讚讗讬转 诇讬讛 转专讬 讚砖讬 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 讞讚讗 诪讬谞讬讬讛讜 讘讟讜诇讬 诪讘讟讬诇 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉:

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 laces 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 considered permanent.

讜讞讜讟讬 住讘讻讛: 驻砖讬讟讗 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 讚专讜讬讞讗 诇讛 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 诪讬砖诇祝 砖诇驻讗 诇讛 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讚讗砖讛 讞住讛 注诇 砖注专讛 讜诪讬砖专讗 砖专讬讗 诇讛:

We learned in the mishna: And a woman may tie the strings of her hairnet on Shabbat. The Gemara states: This is obvious. The Gemara 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.

讜专爪讜注讜转 诪谞注诇 讜住谞讚诇: 讗讬转诪专 讛转讬专 专爪讜注讜转 诪谞注诇 讜住谞讚诇 转谞讬 讞讚讗 讞讬讬讘 讞讟讗转 讜转谞讬讗 讗讬讚讱 驻讟讜专 讗讘诇 讗住讜专 讜转谞讬讗 讗讬讚讱 诪讜转专 诇讻转讞讬诇讛 拽砖讬讗 诪谞注诇 讗诪谞注诇 拽砖讬讗 住谞讚诇 讗住谞讚诇

We learned in the mishna: And it is permitted to tie the straps of a shoe or a sandal 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.

诪谞注诇 讗诪谞注诇 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 讚拽转谞讬 讞讬讬讘 讞讟讗转 讘讚讗讜砖讻驻讬 驻讟讜专 讗讘诇 讗住讜专 讘讚专讘谞谉 诪讜转专 诇讻转讞诇讛 讘讚讘谞讬 诪讞讜讝讗

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鈥檚 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 rabbinic 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 Me岣za, who are meticulous in their dress and who tie and untie their shoes every day.

住谞讚诇 讗住谞讚诇 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 讚拽转谞讬 讞讬讬讘 讞讟讗转 讘讚讟讬讬注讬 讚拽讟专讬 讗讜砖讻驻讬 驻讟讜专 讗讘诇 讗住讜专 讘讚讞讜诪专转讗 讚拽讟专讬 讗讬谞讛讜 诪讜转专 诇讻转讞讬诇讛 讘住谞讚诇 讚谞驻拽讬 讘讬讛 讘讬 转专讬 讻讚专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讚专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讞讜讛 讚专讘 住诇讗 讞住讬讚讗 讛讜讛 诇讬讛 讛讛讜讗 讝讜讙讗 讚住谞讚诇讬 讝诪谞讬谉 讚谞驻讬拽 讘讬讛 讗讬讛讜 讝讬诪谞讬谉 谞驻讬拽 讘讬讛 讬谞讜拽讬讛 讗转讗 诇拽诪讬讛 讚讗讘讬讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讻讛讗讬 讙讜谞讗 诪讗讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讞讬讬讘 讞讟讗转

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 permanent knots. And the baraita that teaches that he is exempt by Torah law and it is prohibited by rabbinic decree is referring to straps 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 岣sida, 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.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛砖转讗 驻讟讜专 讗讘诇 讗住讜专 拽讗 拽砖讬讗 诇讬 讞讬讬讘 讞讟讗转 拽讗诪专转 诇讬 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪砖讜诐 讚讘讞讜诇 谞诪讬 讝讬诪谞讬谉 谞驻讬拽谞讗 讘讬讛 讗谞讗 讝讬诪谞讬谉 谞驻讬拽 讘讬讛 讬谞讜拽讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬 讛讻讬 诪讜转专 诇讻转讞讬诇讛

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.

专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 讛讜讛 拽讗讝讬诇 讘转专讬讛 讚专讘讬 讗讘讛讜 讘讻专诪诇讬转 讗讬驻住讬拽 专爪讜注讛 讚住谞讚诇讬讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪讗讬 讗注讘讬讚 诇讬讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 砖拽讜诇 讙诪讬 诇讞 讚讞讝讬 诇诪讗讻诇 讘讛诪讛 讜讻专讜讱 注讬诇讜讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讛讜讛 拽讗讬 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 讬讜住祝 讗讬驻住讬拽 诇讬讛 专爪讜注讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪讗讬 讗讬注讘讬讚 诇讬讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 砖讘拽讬讛 诪讗讬 砖谞讗 诪讚专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 讛转诐 诇讗 诪讬谞讟专 讛讻讗 诪讬谞讟专 讜讛讗 诪谞讗 讛讜讗 讚讗讬 讘注讬谞讗 讛驻讬讻谞讗 诇讬讛 诪讬诪讬谉 诇砖诪讗诇 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪讚拽诪转专抓 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诇讬讘讗 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛

Rabbi Yirmeya was walking after Rabbi Abbahu in a karmelit on Shabbat when the strap of his sandal tore. 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 it from the right foot to the left foot and wear it. Rav Yosef said to him: From the fact that Rabbi Yo岣nan 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.

诪讗讬 讛讬讗 讚转谞讬讗 住谞讚诇 砖谞驻住拽讜 砖转讬 讗讝谞讬讜 讗讜 砖转讬 转专住讬讜转讬讜 讗讜 砖谞讬讟诇 讻诇 讛讻祝 砖诇讜 讟讛讜专 讗讞转 诪讗讝谞讬讜 讗讜 讗讞转 诪转专住讬讜转讬讜 讗讜 砖谞讬讟诇 专讜讘 讛讻祝 砖诇讜 讟诪讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 谞驻住拽讛 驻谞讬诪讬转 讟诪讗 讛讞讬爪讜谞讛 讟讛讜专 讜讗诪专 注讜诇讗 讜讗讬转讬诪讗 专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讻诪讞诇讜拽转 诇注谞讬谉 讟讜诪讗讛 讻讱 诪讞诇讜拽转 诇注谞讬谉 砖讘转 讗讘诇 诇讗 诇注谞讬谉 讞诇讬爪讛

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鈥檕nim) broke, 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 岣na, said that Rabbi Yo岣nan 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 Shabbat. However, there is no dispute with regard to 岣litza.

讜讛讜讬谞谉 讘讛 [专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉] 讗诇讬讘讗 讚诪讗谉 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讗诇讬讘讗 讚专讘谞谉 诪讚诇注谞讬谉 讟讜诪讗讛 诪谞讗 讛讜讬 诇注谞讬谉 砖讘转 谞诪讬 诪谞讗 讛讜讬 讗讘诇 诇讗 诇讞诇讬爪讛 讚诇讗讜 诪谞讗 讛讜讗 讜讛转谞谉 讞诇爪讛 砖诇 砖诪讗诇 讘讬诪讬谉 讞诇讬爪转讛 讻砖专讛 讜讗诇讗 讗诇讬讘讗 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诪讚诇注谞讬谉 讟讜诪讗讛 诇讗讜 诪谞讗 讛讜讗 诇注谞讬谉 砖讘转 谞诪讬 诇讗讜 诪谞讗 讛讜讗 讗讘诇 诇讗 诇讞诇讬爪讛 讚诪谞讗 讛讜讗

And we discussed this issue: In accordance with whose opinion is the statement of Rabbi Yo岣nan? 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 岣litza. However, didn鈥檛 we learn in a mishna: If she removed the left shoe, which was on the right foot of her brother-in-law, her 岣litza is valid? Apparently, a woman can perform 岣litza even when the shoe is on the wrong foot, and it is not deemed unfit for 岣litza. Rather, Rabbi Yo岣nan鈥檚 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 utensil, with regard to Shabbat it is also not a utensil. However, that is not the case with regard to 岣litza, for which it is a utensil.

讗讬诪专 讚讗诪专讬谞谉 讞诇爪讛 砖诇 砖诪讗诇 讘讬诪讬谉 讞诇讬爪转讛 讻砖专讛 讛讬讻讗 讚诇诪讬诇转讬讛 诪谞讗 讛讜讗 讛讻讗 诇诪讬诇转讬讛 诇讗讜 诪谞讗 讛讜讗 讚讛讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 谞驻住拽讛 讛讞讬爪讜谞讛 讟讛讜专 讗诇诪讗 诇讗讜 诪谞讗 讛讜讗 诇注讜诇诐 讗诇讬讘讗 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讬诪讗 讜讻谉 诇讞诇讬爪讛 讜讛讗 拽诪砖诪注 诇谉 讚讻讬 讗诪专讬谞谉 讞诇爪讛 砖诇 砖诪讗诇 讘砖诇 讬诪讬谉 讞诇讬爪转讛 讻砖专讛 讛讬讻讗

The Gemara asks: Say that we said that if she removed the left shoe which was on the right foot, her 岣litza 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 ritually pure. Apparently, according to Rabbi Yehuda, it is not a utensil. Rabbi Yo岣nan鈥檚 statement is difficult according to both opinions. The Gemara answers: Actually, his opinion is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda; however, emend his statement and say that Rabbi Yo岣nan said: And this is the halakha with regard to 岣litza as well. And this teaches us that when we say that if she removed the left shoe that was on the right foot her 岣litza is valid, that is only in a case where

讚诇诪讬诇转讬讛 诪谞讗 讛讜讗 讗讘诇 讛讻讗 诇诪讬诇转讬讛 诇讗讜 诪谞讗 讛讜讗

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.

讜诪讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛讻讬 讜讛讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛诇讻讛 讻住转诐 诪砖谞讛 讜转谞谉 住谞讚诇 砖谞驻住拽讛 讗讞转 诪讗讝谞讬讜 讜转讬拽谞讛 讟诪讗 诪讚专住 (谞驻住拽讛 砖谞讬讛 讜转讬拽谞讛 讟讛讜专 诪诇讟诪讗 诪讚专住 讗讘诇 讟诪讗 诪讙注 诪讚专住) 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 诇讗 砖谞讗 驻谞讬诪讬转 讜诇讗 砖谞讗 讞讬爪讜谞讛

The Gemara asks: Did Rabbi Yo岣nan in fact say that the halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda, who says that if the outer strap broke the sandal becomes pure? Didn鈥檛 Rabbi Yo岣nan say: The halakha is in accordance with an unattributed mishna? And we learned in a mishna: A sandal that became ritually impure with impurity imparted by the treading of a zav, and one of its ears broke and he repaired it, this sandal is still impure with ritual impurity imparted by treading, 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 ritually 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 imparted 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鈥檚 use? This contradicts Rabbi Yo岣nan鈥檚 statement.

诇讗 驻谞讬诪讬转 讚讜拽讗 讗讘诇 讞讬爪讜谞讛 诪讗讬 讟讛讜专 讗讬 讛讻讬 讗讚转谞讬 谞驻住拽讛 砖谞讬讛 讜转讬拽谞讛 讟讛讜专 诪谉 讛诪讚专住 讗讘诇 讟诪讗 诪讙注 诪讚专住 谞讬驻诇讜讙 讘讚讬讚讛 讘诪讛 讚讘专讬诐 讗诪讜专讬诐 砖谞驻住拽讛 驻谞讬诪讬转 讗讘诇 讞讬爪讜谞讛 讟讛讜专 讗诪专 专讘 讬爪讞拽 讘谉 讬讜住祝 转讛讗 诪砖谞转谞讜 讘住谞讚诇 砖讬砖 诇讜 讗专讘注 讗讝谞讬诐 讜讗专讘注 转专住讬讜转讬诐 砖诇讗 诇砖讘讜专 讚讘专讬讜 砖诇 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉

The Gemara rejects this: No, this mishna is referring specifically 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 teaching: If the second ear broke and he repaired it, it is ritually pure in the sense that it no longer renders other objects ritually 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 impure with impurity imparted by treading, let him make a distinction 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 Yitz岣k ben Yosef said: Let our mishna be interpreted as referring 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 Yo岣nan鈥檚 statement.

讻讬 讗转讗 专讘讬谉 讗诪专 专讘 讞谞谉 讘专 讗讘讗 讗诪专 专讘 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 讗讬谉 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜诪讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛讻讬 讜讛讗 诪讚诪转专抓 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诇讬讘讗 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 住讘讬专讗 诇讬讛 讗诪讜专讗讬 谞讬谞讛讜 讜讗诇讬讘讗 讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉

When Ravin came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he related that Rav 岣nan bar Abba said that Rav said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda. And Rabbi Yo岣nan said: The halakha is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda. The Gemara asks: And did Rabbi Yo岣nan actually say this? From the fact that Rabbi Yo岣nan provided an explanation in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, conclude from it that he holds that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda. The Gemara answers: They are different amora鈥檌m who made their statements in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yo岣nan.

转谞谉 讛转诐 讻诇 讻诇讬 讘注诇讬 讘转讬诐 砖讬注讜专谉 讻专诪讜谞讬诐 讘注讬 (专讘讬) 讞讝拽讬讛 谞讬拽讘 讻诪讜爪讬讗 讝讬转 讜住转诪讜 讜讞讝专 讜谞讬拽讘 讻诪讜爪讬讗 讝讬转 讜住转诪讜 注讚 砖讛砖诇讬诪讜 诇诪讜爪讬讗 专讬诪讜谉 诪讛讜

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 pure through breaking the utensil if they have holes the size of pomegranates. 岣zkiya asked: What is the halakha when a utensil was perforated 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?

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 专讘讬 砖谞讬转 诇谞讜 住谞讚诇 砖谞驻住拽讛 讗讞转 诪讗讝谞讬讜 讜转讬拽谞讛 讟诪讗 诪讚专住 谞驻住拽讛 砖谞讬讛 讜转讬拽谞讛 讟讛讜专 诪谉 讛诪讚专住 讗讘诇 讟诪讗 诪讙注 诪讚专住 讜讗诪专讬谞谉 诇讱 诪讗讬 砖谞讗 专讗砖讜谞讛 讚讛讗 拽讬讬诪讗 砖谞讬讛 砖谞讬讛 谞诪讬 诪转拽谞讛 专讗砖讜谞讛

Rabbi Yo岣nan, his student, said to him: Master, you taught us that with regard to a sandal that became ritually impure by impurity imparted by the treading of a zav, and one of its ears broke and he repaired 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 ritually impure in the same way a vessel that became a primary source of ritual impurity by means of impurity imparted by treading does. However, it is itself ritually impure with ritual impurity imparted by treading 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.

讜讗诪专转 诇谉 注诇讬讛 驻谞讬诐 讞讚砖讜转 讘讗讜 诇讻讗谉 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 驻谞讬诐 讞讚砖讜转 讘讗讜 诇讻讗谉

And you said to us in this regard that the reason the sandal is pure is because a new face has arrived here. 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.

拽专讬 注诇讬讛 诇讬转 讚讬谉 讘专 讗讬谞砖 讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讻讙讜谉 讚讬谉 讘专 讗讬谞砖 讗诪专 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 讘专 讝讬诪讜谞讗 讗诐 专讗砖讜谞讬诐 讘谞讬 诪诇讗讻讬诐 讗谞讜 讘谞讬 讗谞砖讬诐 讜讗诐 专讗砖讜谞讬诐 讘谞讬 讗谞砖讬诐 讗谞讜 讻讞诪讜专讬诐 讜诇讗 讻讞诪讜专讜 砖诇 专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讘谉 讚讜住讗 讜砖诇 专讘讬 驻谞讞住 讘谉 讬讗讬专 讗诇讗 讻砖讗专 讞诪讜专讬诐:

岣zkiya was so impressed by Rabbi Yo岣nan鈥檚 comment that he exclaimed 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, Rabbi 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 岣nina ben Dosa or the donkey of Rabbi Pin岣s ben Yair, who were both extraordinarily intelligent donkeys; rather, we are akin to other typical donkeys.

讜谞讜讚讜转 讬讬谉 讜砖诪谉: 驻砖讬讟讗 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 讚讗讬转 诇讬讛 转专转讬 讗讜谞讬 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 讞讚讗 诪讬谞讬讬讛讜 讘讟讜诇讬 诪讘讟诇 诇讛 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉:

And we learned in the mishna: It is permitted to tie the spouts of wine or oil jugs. 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 consequently defining the knot on that opening permanent and therefore prohibited, it teaches us that this is not the case.

拽讚讬专讛 砖诇 讘砖专: 驻砖讬讟讗 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 讚讗讬转 诇讛 砖诇讗讻讗 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 讘讟讜诇讬 诪讘讟诇 诇讛 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉:

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 explains: 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.

专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘谉 讬注拽讘 讗讜诪专 拽讜砖专讛 讻讜壮: 驻砖讬讟讗 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 讚讗讬转 诇讛 转专转讬 讗讬住专讬 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗

We also learned in the mishna that Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya鈥檃kov says: One may tie a rope across an entrance 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

Masechet Shabbat is sponsored in memory of Elliot Freilich, Eliyahu Daniel ben Bar Tzion David Halevi z"l by a group of women from Kehilath Jeshurun, Manhattan.

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

learn daf yomi one week at a time with tamara spitz

Daf Yomi: One Week at a Time – Shabbat 110-116

We will review concepts in Daf 110-116 including how to prevent snake bites, which knots are prohibited and which are...
talking-talmud-rectangle TT

Shabbat 112: The Donkeys Who Kept Kosher

  Tying knots: professional, unprofessional, and knots that won't last. The Gemara says: well, obviously (!) a woman is permitted...

Shabbat 112

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Shabbat 112

拽讬讟专讗 讚拽讟专讬 讘讝诪诪讗 讜拽讬讟专讗 讚拽讟专讬 讘讗讬住讟专讬讚讗 讞讬讜讘讗 讛讜讗 讚诇讬讻讗 讛讗 讗讬住讜专讗 讗讬讻讗 讜讬砖 砖诪讜转专讬谉 诇讻转讞讬诇讛 讜诪讗讬 谞讬讛讜 拽讜砖专转 诪驻转讞讬 讞诇讜拽讛:

A knot with which one ties a strap to the camel鈥檚 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.

诪驻转讞 讞诇讜拽讛: 驻砖讬讟讗 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 讚讗讬转 诇讬讛 转专讬 讚砖讬 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 讞讚讗 诪讬谞讬讬讛讜 讘讟讜诇讬 诪讘讟讬诇 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉:

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 laces 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 considered permanent.

讜讞讜讟讬 住讘讻讛: 驻砖讬讟讗 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 讚专讜讬讞讗 诇讛 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 诪讬砖诇祝 砖诇驻讗 诇讛 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讚讗砖讛 讞住讛 注诇 砖注专讛 讜诪讬砖专讗 砖专讬讗 诇讛:

We learned in the mishna: And a woman may tie the strings of her hairnet on Shabbat. The Gemara states: This is obvious. The Gemara 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.

讜专爪讜注讜转 诪谞注诇 讜住谞讚诇: 讗讬转诪专 讛转讬专 专爪讜注讜转 诪谞注诇 讜住谞讚诇 转谞讬 讞讚讗 讞讬讬讘 讞讟讗转 讜转谞讬讗 讗讬讚讱 驻讟讜专 讗讘诇 讗住讜专 讜转谞讬讗 讗讬讚讱 诪讜转专 诇讻转讞讬诇讛 拽砖讬讗 诪谞注诇 讗诪谞注诇 拽砖讬讗 住谞讚诇 讗住谞讚诇

We learned in the mishna: And it is permitted to tie the straps of a shoe or a sandal 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.

诪谞注诇 讗诪谞注诇 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 讚拽转谞讬 讞讬讬讘 讞讟讗转 讘讚讗讜砖讻驻讬 驻讟讜专 讗讘诇 讗住讜专 讘讚专讘谞谉 诪讜转专 诇讻转讞诇讛 讘讚讘谞讬 诪讞讜讝讗

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鈥檚 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 rabbinic 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 Me岣za, who are meticulous in their dress and who tie and untie their shoes every day.

住谞讚诇 讗住谞讚诇 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 讚拽转谞讬 讞讬讬讘 讞讟讗转 讘讚讟讬讬注讬 讚拽讟专讬 讗讜砖讻驻讬 驻讟讜专 讗讘诇 讗住讜专 讘讚讞讜诪专转讗 讚拽讟专讬 讗讬谞讛讜 诪讜转专 诇讻转讞讬诇讛 讘住谞讚诇 讚谞驻拽讬 讘讬讛 讘讬 转专讬 讻讚专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讚专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讞讜讛 讚专讘 住诇讗 讞住讬讚讗 讛讜讛 诇讬讛 讛讛讜讗 讝讜讙讗 讚住谞讚诇讬 讝诪谞讬谉 讚谞驻讬拽 讘讬讛 讗讬讛讜 讝讬诪谞讬谉 谞驻讬拽 讘讬讛 讬谞讜拽讬讛 讗转讗 诇拽诪讬讛 讚讗讘讬讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讻讛讗讬 讙讜谞讗 诪讗讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讞讬讬讘 讞讟讗转

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 permanent knots. And the baraita that teaches that he is exempt by Torah law and it is prohibited by rabbinic decree is referring to straps 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 岣sida, 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.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛砖转讗 驻讟讜专 讗讘诇 讗住讜专 拽讗 拽砖讬讗 诇讬 讞讬讬讘 讞讟讗转 拽讗诪专转 诇讬 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪砖讜诐 讚讘讞讜诇 谞诪讬 讝讬诪谞讬谉 谞驻讬拽谞讗 讘讬讛 讗谞讗 讝讬诪谞讬谉 谞驻讬拽 讘讬讛 讬谞讜拽讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬 讛讻讬 诪讜转专 诇讻转讞讬诇讛

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.

专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 讛讜讛 拽讗讝讬诇 讘转专讬讛 讚专讘讬 讗讘讛讜 讘讻专诪诇讬转 讗讬驻住讬拽 专爪讜注讛 讚住谞讚诇讬讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪讗讬 讗注讘讬讚 诇讬讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 砖拽讜诇 讙诪讬 诇讞 讚讞讝讬 诇诪讗讻诇 讘讛诪讛 讜讻专讜讱 注讬诇讜讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讛讜讛 拽讗讬 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 讬讜住祝 讗讬驻住讬拽 诇讬讛 专爪讜注讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪讗讬 讗讬注讘讬讚 诇讬讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 砖讘拽讬讛 诪讗讬 砖谞讗 诪讚专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 讛转诐 诇讗 诪讬谞讟专 讛讻讗 诪讬谞讟专 讜讛讗 诪谞讗 讛讜讗 讚讗讬 讘注讬谞讗 讛驻讬讻谞讗 诇讬讛 诪讬诪讬谉 诇砖诪讗诇 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪讚拽诪转专抓 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诇讬讘讗 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛

Rabbi Yirmeya was walking after Rabbi Abbahu in a karmelit on Shabbat when the strap of his sandal tore. 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 it from the right foot to the left foot and wear it. Rav Yosef said to him: From the fact that Rabbi Yo岣nan 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.

诪讗讬 讛讬讗 讚转谞讬讗 住谞讚诇 砖谞驻住拽讜 砖转讬 讗讝谞讬讜 讗讜 砖转讬 转专住讬讜转讬讜 讗讜 砖谞讬讟诇 讻诇 讛讻祝 砖诇讜 讟讛讜专 讗讞转 诪讗讝谞讬讜 讗讜 讗讞转 诪转专住讬讜转讬讜 讗讜 砖谞讬讟诇 专讜讘 讛讻祝 砖诇讜 讟诪讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 谞驻住拽讛 驻谞讬诪讬转 讟诪讗 讛讞讬爪讜谞讛 讟讛讜专 讜讗诪专 注讜诇讗 讜讗讬转讬诪讗 专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讻诪讞诇讜拽转 诇注谞讬谉 讟讜诪讗讛 讻讱 诪讞诇讜拽转 诇注谞讬谉 砖讘转 讗讘诇 诇讗 诇注谞讬谉 讞诇讬爪讛

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鈥檕nim) broke, 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 岣na, said that Rabbi Yo岣nan 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 Shabbat. However, there is no dispute with regard to 岣litza.

讜讛讜讬谞谉 讘讛 [专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉] 讗诇讬讘讗 讚诪讗谉 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讗诇讬讘讗 讚专讘谞谉 诪讚诇注谞讬谉 讟讜诪讗讛 诪谞讗 讛讜讬 诇注谞讬谉 砖讘转 谞诪讬 诪谞讗 讛讜讬 讗讘诇 诇讗 诇讞诇讬爪讛 讚诇讗讜 诪谞讗 讛讜讗 讜讛转谞谉 讞诇爪讛 砖诇 砖诪讗诇 讘讬诪讬谉 讞诇讬爪转讛 讻砖专讛 讜讗诇讗 讗诇讬讘讗 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诪讚诇注谞讬谉 讟讜诪讗讛 诇讗讜 诪谞讗 讛讜讗 诇注谞讬谉 砖讘转 谞诪讬 诇讗讜 诪谞讗 讛讜讗 讗讘诇 诇讗 诇讞诇讬爪讛 讚诪谞讗 讛讜讗

And we discussed this issue: In accordance with whose opinion is the statement of Rabbi Yo岣nan? 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 岣litza. However, didn鈥檛 we learn in a mishna: If she removed the left shoe, which was on the right foot of her brother-in-law, her 岣litza is valid? Apparently, a woman can perform 岣litza even when the shoe is on the wrong foot, and it is not deemed unfit for 岣litza. Rather, Rabbi Yo岣nan鈥檚 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 utensil, with regard to Shabbat it is also not a utensil. However, that is not the case with regard to 岣litza, for which it is a utensil.

讗讬诪专 讚讗诪专讬谞谉 讞诇爪讛 砖诇 砖诪讗诇 讘讬诪讬谉 讞诇讬爪转讛 讻砖专讛 讛讬讻讗 讚诇诪讬诇转讬讛 诪谞讗 讛讜讗 讛讻讗 诇诪讬诇转讬讛 诇讗讜 诪谞讗 讛讜讗 讚讛讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 谞驻住拽讛 讛讞讬爪讜谞讛 讟讛讜专 讗诇诪讗 诇讗讜 诪谞讗 讛讜讗 诇注讜诇诐 讗诇讬讘讗 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讬诪讗 讜讻谉 诇讞诇讬爪讛 讜讛讗 拽诪砖诪注 诇谉 讚讻讬 讗诪专讬谞谉 讞诇爪讛 砖诇 砖诪讗诇 讘砖诇 讬诪讬谉 讞诇讬爪转讛 讻砖专讛 讛讬讻讗

The Gemara asks: Say that we said that if she removed the left shoe which was on the right foot, her 岣litza 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 ritually pure. Apparently, according to Rabbi Yehuda, it is not a utensil. Rabbi Yo岣nan鈥檚 statement is difficult according to both opinions. The Gemara answers: Actually, his opinion is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda; however, emend his statement and say that Rabbi Yo岣nan said: And this is the halakha with regard to 岣litza as well. And this teaches us that when we say that if she removed the left shoe that was on the right foot her 岣litza is valid, that is only in a case where

讚诇诪讬诇转讬讛 诪谞讗 讛讜讗 讗讘诇 讛讻讗 诇诪讬诇转讬讛 诇讗讜 诪谞讗 讛讜讗

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.

讜诪讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛讻讬 讜讛讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛诇讻讛 讻住转诐 诪砖谞讛 讜转谞谉 住谞讚诇 砖谞驻住拽讛 讗讞转 诪讗讝谞讬讜 讜转讬拽谞讛 讟诪讗 诪讚专住 (谞驻住拽讛 砖谞讬讛 讜转讬拽谞讛 讟讛讜专 诪诇讟诪讗 诪讚专住 讗讘诇 讟诪讗 诪讙注 诪讚专住) 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 诇讗 砖谞讗 驻谞讬诪讬转 讜诇讗 砖谞讗 讞讬爪讜谞讛

The Gemara asks: Did Rabbi Yo岣nan in fact say that the halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda, who says that if the outer strap broke the sandal becomes pure? Didn鈥檛 Rabbi Yo岣nan say: The halakha is in accordance with an unattributed mishna? And we learned in a mishna: A sandal that became ritually impure with impurity imparted by the treading of a zav, and one of its ears broke and he repaired it, this sandal is still impure with ritual impurity imparted by treading, 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 ritually 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 imparted 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鈥檚 use? This contradicts Rabbi Yo岣nan鈥檚 statement.

诇讗 驻谞讬诪讬转 讚讜拽讗 讗讘诇 讞讬爪讜谞讛 诪讗讬 讟讛讜专 讗讬 讛讻讬 讗讚转谞讬 谞驻住拽讛 砖谞讬讛 讜转讬拽谞讛 讟讛讜专 诪谉 讛诪讚专住 讗讘诇 讟诪讗 诪讙注 诪讚专住 谞讬驻诇讜讙 讘讚讬讚讛 讘诪讛 讚讘专讬诐 讗诪讜专讬诐 砖谞驻住拽讛 驻谞讬诪讬转 讗讘诇 讞讬爪讜谞讛 讟讛讜专 讗诪专 专讘 讬爪讞拽 讘谉 讬讜住祝 转讛讗 诪砖谞转谞讜 讘住谞讚诇 砖讬砖 诇讜 讗专讘注 讗讝谞讬诐 讜讗专讘注 转专住讬讜转讬诐 砖诇讗 诇砖讘讜专 讚讘专讬讜 砖诇 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉

The Gemara rejects this: No, this mishna is referring specifically 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 teaching: If the second ear broke and he repaired it, it is ritually pure in the sense that it no longer renders other objects ritually 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 impure with impurity imparted by treading, let him make a distinction 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 Yitz岣k ben Yosef said: Let our mishna be interpreted as referring 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 Yo岣nan鈥檚 statement.

讻讬 讗转讗 专讘讬谉 讗诪专 专讘 讞谞谉 讘专 讗讘讗 讗诪专 专讘 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 讗讬谉 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜诪讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛讻讬 讜讛讗 诪讚诪转专抓 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诇讬讘讗 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 住讘讬专讗 诇讬讛 讗诪讜专讗讬 谞讬谞讛讜 讜讗诇讬讘讗 讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉

When Ravin came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he related that Rav 岣nan bar Abba said that Rav said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda. And Rabbi Yo岣nan said: The halakha is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda. The Gemara asks: And did Rabbi Yo岣nan actually say this? From the fact that Rabbi Yo岣nan provided an explanation in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, conclude from it that he holds that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda. The Gemara answers: They are different amora鈥檌m who made their statements in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yo岣nan.

转谞谉 讛转诐 讻诇 讻诇讬 讘注诇讬 讘转讬诐 砖讬注讜专谉 讻专诪讜谞讬诐 讘注讬 (专讘讬) 讞讝拽讬讛 谞讬拽讘 讻诪讜爪讬讗 讝讬转 讜住转诪讜 讜讞讝专 讜谞讬拽讘 讻诪讜爪讬讗 讝讬转 讜住转诪讜 注讚 砖讛砖诇讬诪讜 诇诪讜爪讬讗 专讬诪讜谉 诪讛讜

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 pure through breaking the utensil if they have holes the size of pomegranates. 岣zkiya asked: What is the halakha when a utensil was perforated 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?

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 专讘讬 砖谞讬转 诇谞讜 住谞讚诇 砖谞驻住拽讛 讗讞转 诪讗讝谞讬讜 讜转讬拽谞讛 讟诪讗 诪讚专住 谞驻住拽讛 砖谞讬讛 讜转讬拽谞讛 讟讛讜专 诪谉 讛诪讚专住 讗讘诇 讟诪讗 诪讙注 诪讚专住 讜讗诪专讬谞谉 诇讱 诪讗讬 砖谞讗 专讗砖讜谞讛 讚讛讗 拽讬讬诪讗 砖谞讬讛 砖谞讬讛 谞诪讬 诪转拽谞讛 专讗砖讜谞讛

Rabbi Yo岣nan, his student, said to him: Master, you taught us that with regard to a sandal that became ritually impure by impurity imparted by the treading of a zav, and one of its ears broke and he repaired 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 ritually impure in the same way a vessel that became a primary source of ritual impurity by means of impurity imparted by treading does. However, it is itself ritually impure with ritual impurity imparted by treading 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.

讜讗诪专转 诇谉 注诇讬讛 驻谞讬诐 讞讚砖讜转 讘讗讜 诇讻讗谉 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 驻谞讬诐 讞讚砖讜转 讘讗讜 诇讻讗谉

And you said to us in this regard that the reason the sandal is pure is because a new face has arrived here. 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.

拽专讬 注诇讬讛 诇讬转 讚讬谉 讘专 讗讬谞砖 讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讻讙讜谉 讚讬谉 讘专 讗讬谞砖 讗诪专 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 讘专 讝讬诪讜谞讗 讗诐 专讗砖讜谞讬诐 讘谞讬 诪诇讗讻讬诐 讗谞讜 讘谞讬 讗谞砖讬诐 讜讗诐 专讗砖讜谞讬诐 讘谞讬 讗谞砖讬诐 讗谞讜 讻讞诪讜专讬诐 讜诇讗 讻讞诪讜专讜 砖诇 专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讘谉 讚讜住讗 讜砖诇 专讘讬 驻谞讞住 讘谉 讬讗讬专 讗诇讗 讻砖讗专 讞诪讜专讬诐:

岣zkiya was so impressed by Rabbi Yo岣nan鈥檚 comment that he exclaimed 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, Rabbi 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 岣nina ben Dosa or the donkey of Rabbi Pin岣s ben Yair, who were both extraordinarily intelligent donkeys; rather, we are akin to other typical donkeys.

讜谞讜讚讜转 讬讬谉 讜砖诪谉: 驻砖讬讟讗 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 讚讗讬转 诇讬讛 转专转讬 讗讜谞讬 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 讞讚讗 诪讬谞讬讬讛讜 讘讟讜诇讬 诪讘讟诇 诇讛 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉:

And we learned in the mishna: It is permitted to tie the spouts of wine or oil jugs. 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 consequently defining the knot on that opening permanent and therefore prohibited, it teaches us that this is not the case.

拽讚讬专讛 砖诇 讘砖专: 驻砖讬讟讗 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 讚讗讬转 诇讛 砖诇讗讻讗 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 讘讟讜诇讬 诪讘讟诇 诇讛 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉:

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 explains: 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.

专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘谉 讬注拽讘 讗讜诪专 拽讜砖专讛 讻讜壮: 驻砖讬讟讗 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 讚讗讬转 诇讛 转专转讬 讗讬住专讬 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗

We also learned in the mishna that Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya鈥檃kov says: One may tie a rope across an entrance 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

Scroll To Top