Shabbat 112

קיטרא דקטרי בזממא וקיטרא דקטרי באיסטרידא חיובא הוא דליכא הא איסורא איכא ויש שמותרין לכתחילה ומאי ניהו קושרת מפתחי חלוקה:

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.

מפתח חלוקה: פשיטא לא צריכא דאית ליה תרי דשי מהו דתימא חדא מינייהו בטולי מבטיל קא משמע לן:

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.

וחוטי סבכה: פשיטא לא צריכא דרויחא לה מהו דתימא מישלף שלפא לה קא משמע לן דאשה חסה על שערה ומישרא שריא לה:

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.

ורצועות מנעל וסנדל: איתמר התיר רצועות מנעל וסנדל תני חדא חייב חטאת ותניא אידך פטור אבל אסור ותניא אידך מותר לכתחילה קשיא מנעל אמנעל קשיא סנדל אסנדל

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.

מנעל אמנעל לא קשיא הא דקתני חייב חטאת בדאושכפי פטור אבל אסור בדרבנן מותר לכתחלה בדבני מחוזא

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 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 Meḥoza, who are meticulous in their dress and who tie and untie their shoes every day.

סנדל אסנדל לא קשיא הא דקתני חייב חטאת בדטייעי דקטרי אושכפי פטור אבל אסור בדחומרתא דקטרי אינהו מותר לכתחילה בסנדל דנפקי ביה בי תרי כדרב יהודה דרב יהודה אחוה דרב סלא חסידא הוה ליה ההוא זוגא דסנדלי זמנין דנפיק ביה איהו זימנין נפיק ביה ינוקיה אתא לקמיה דאביי אמר ליה כהאי גונא מאי אמר ליה חייב חטאת

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 Ḥasida, 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.

אמר ליה השתא פטור אבל אסור קא קשיא לי חייב חטאת קאמרת לי מאי טעמא אמר ליה משום דבחול נמי זימנין נפיקנא ביה אנא זימנין נפיק ביה ינוקא אמר ליה אי הכי מותר לכתחילה

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.

רבי ירמיה הוה קאזיל בתריה דרבי אבהו בכרמלית איפסיק רצועה דסנדליה אמר ליה מאי אעביד ליה אמר ליה שקול גמי לח דחזי למאכל בהמה וכרוך עילויה אביי הוה קאי קמיה דרב יוסף איפסיק ליה רצועה אמר ליה מאי איעביד ליה אמר ליה שבקיה מאי שנא מדרבי ירמיה התם לא מינטר הכא מינטר והא מנא הוא דאי בעינא הפיכנא ליה מימין לשמאל אמר ליה מדקמתרץ רבי יוחנן אליבא דרבי יהודה שמע מינה הלכה כרבי יהודה

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 Yoḥanan 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.

מאי היא דתניא סנדל שנפסקו שתי אזניו או שתי תרסיותיו או שניטל כל הכף שלו טהור אחת מאזניו או אחת מתרסיותיו או שניטל רוב הכף שלו טמא רבי יהודה אומר נפסקה פנימית טמא החיצונה טהור ואמר עולא ואיתימא רבה בר בר חנה אמר רבי יוחנן כמחלוקת לענין טומאה כך מחלוקת לענין שבת אבל לא לענין חליצה

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, 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 Ḥana, said that Rabbi Yoḥanan 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 ḥalitza.

והוינן בה [רבי יוחנן] אליבא דמאן אילימא אליבא דרבנן מדלענין טומאה מנא הוי לענין שבת נמי מנא הוי אבל לא לחליצה דלאו מנא הוא והתנן חלצה של שמאל בימין חליצתה כשרה ואלא אליבא דרבי יהודה מדלענין טומאה לאו מנא הוא לענין שבת נמי לאו מנא הוא אבל לא לחליצה דמנא הוא

And we discussed this issue: In accordance with whose opinion is the statement of Rabbi Yoḥanan? 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 ḥalitza. 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 ḥalitza is valid? Apparently, a woman can perform ḥalitza even when the shoe is on the wrong foot, and it is not deemed unfit for ḥalitza. Rather, Rabbi Yoḥanan’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 utensil, with regard to Shabbat it is also not a utensil. However, that is not the case with regard to ḥalitza, for which it is a utensil.

אימר דאמרינן חלצה של שמאל בימין חליצתה כשרה היכא דלמילתיה מנא הוא הכא למילתיה לאו מנא הוא דהא אמר רבי יהודה נפסקה החיצונה טהור אלמא לאו מנא הוא לעולם אליבא דרבי יהודה אימא וכן לחליצה והא קמשמע לן דכי אמרינן חלצה של שמאל בשל ימין חליצתה כשרה היכא

The Gemara asks: Say that we said that if she removed the left shoe which was on the right foot, her ḥalitza 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 Yoḥanan’s 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 Yoḥanan said: And this is the halakha with regard to ḥalitza as well. And this teaches us that when we say that if she removed the left shoe that was on the right foot her ḥalitza is valid, that is only in a case where

דלמילתיה מנא הוא אבל הכא למילתיה לאו מנא הוא

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.

ומי אמר רבי יוחנן הכי והאמר רבי יוחנן הלכה כסתם משנה ותנן סנדל שנפסקה אחת מאזניו ותיקנה טמא מדרס (נפסקה שניה ותיקנה טהור מלטמא מדרס אבל טמא מגע מדרס) מאי לאו לא שנא פנימית ולא שנא חיצונה

The Gemara asks: Did Rabbi Yoḥanan 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’t Rabbi Yoḥanan 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’s use? This contradicts Rabbi Yoḥanan’s statement.

לא פנימית דוקא אבל חיצונה מאי טהור אי הכי אדתני נפסקה שניה ותיקנה טהור מן המדרס אבל טמא מגע מדרס ניפלוג בדידה במה דברים אמורים שנפסקה פנימית אבל חיצונה טהור אמר רב יצחק בן יוסף תהא משנתנו בסנדל שיש לו ארבע אזנים וארבע תרסיותים שלא לשבור דבריו של רבי יוחנן

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 Yitzḥak 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 Yoḥanan’s statement.

כי אתא רבין אמר רב חנן בר אבא אמר רב הלכה כרבי יהודה ורבי יוחנן אמר אין הלכה כרבי יהודה ומי אמר רבי יוחנן הכי והא מדמתרץ רבי יוחנן אליבא דרבי יהודה שמע מינה כרבי יהודה סבירא ליה אמוראי נינהו ואליבא דרבי יוחנן

When Ravin came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he related that Rav Ḥanan bar Abba said that Rav said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda. And Rabbi Yoḥanan said: The halakha is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda. The Gemara asks: And did Rabbi Yoḥanan actually say this? From the fact that Rabbi Yoḥanan 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’im who made their statements in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan.

תנן התם כל כלי בעלי בתים שיעורן כרמונים בעי (רבי) חזקיה ניקב כמוציא זית וסתמו וחזר וניקב כמוציא זית וסתמו עד שהשלימו למוציא רימון מהו

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. Ḥizkiya 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?

אמר ליה רבי יוחנן רבי שנית לנו סנדל שנפסקה אחת מאזניו ותיקנה טמא מדרס נפסקה שניה ותיקנה טהור מן המדרס אבל טמא מגע מדרס ואמרינן לך מאי שנא ראשונה דהא קיימא שניה שניה נמי מתקנה ראשונה

Rabbi Yoḥanan, 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.

ואמרת לן עליה פנים חדשות באו לכאן הכא נמי פנים חדשות באו לכאן

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.

קרי עליה לית דין בר אינש איכא דאמרי כגון דין בר אינש אמר רבי זירא אמר רבא בר זימונא אם ראשונים בני מלאכים אנו בני אנשים ואם ראשונים בני אנשים אנו כחמורים ולא כחמורו של רבי חנינא בן דוסא ושל רבי פנחס בן יאיר אלא כשאר חמורים:

Ḥizkiya was so impressed by Rabbi Yoḥanan’s 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 Ḥanina ben Dosa or the donkey of Rabbi Pinḥas ben Yair, who were both extraordinarily intelligent donkeys; rather, we are akin to other typical donkeys.

ונודות יין ושמן: פשיטא לא צריכא דאית ליה תרתי אוני מהו דתימא חדא מינייהו בטולי מבטל לה קא משמע לן:

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.

קדירה של בשר: פשיטא לא צריכא דאית לה שלאכא מהו דתימא בטולי מבטל לה קא משמע לן:

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.

רבי אליעזר בן יעקב אומר קושרה כו׳: פשיטא לא צריכא דאית לה תרתי איסרי מהו דתימא

We also learned in the mishna that Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov 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