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

Today's Daf Yomi

May 5, 2020 | 讬状讗 讘讗讬讬专 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.

Iyar is sponsored by Aviva and Benny Adler in memory of Yosef ben Zvi HaKohen, Dr. Joseph Kahane z"l and Yehuda Aryeh Leib ben Yisachar Dov Barash, Ari Adler z"l.

  • 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 60

The gemara brings three resolutions to the contradiction between our mishna and the mishna in kelim 聽regarding a signet ring – is it considered jewelry. With what items is it forbidden by the rabbis for a man to go out with wearing in public. Why did they forbid a hobnailed sandal? It seems to have been to remember a particular incident relating to fear of the enemy. The gemara discusses exactly which type of sandal is forbidden and under what conditions would it be permitted.

讘拽讜诇讘 讛诇讱 讗讞专 诪住诪专讜转讬讜 讘住讜诇诐 讛诇讱 讗讞专 砖诇讬讘讜转讬讜 讘注专住讗 讛诇讱 讗讞专 砖诇砖诇讜转讬讜 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讛讻诇 讛讜诇讱 讗讞专 讛诪注诪讬讚

With a hanging board, follow its nails, upon which the objects hang. With a ladder, follow its rungs. With a large scale, follow its chains and not its baseplates. And the Rabbis say, with regard to all of these vessels, everything follows the support. The legal status of the object is not determined by the component of the vessel most significant in terms of function. It is determined by the component most significant in terms of structure. Therefore, according to Rabbi Ne岣mya there is a distinction, even in the halakhot of Shabbat, between a ring with a seal and a ring without a seal, as in his opinion the seal constitutes the primary function of the ring. However, the Rabbis hold with regard to the halakhot of ritual impurity that the essential part of the ring is the ring itself, not the seal. Therefore, they permit going out into the public domain on Shabbat even with a ring that has a seal.

专讘讗 讗诪专 诇爪讚讚讬诐 拽转谞讬 讬砖 注诇讬讛 讞讜转诐 转讻砖讬讟 讚讗讬砖 讗讬谉 注诇讬讛 讞讜转诐 转讻砖讬讟 讚讗砖讛

Rava said: This contradiction can be resolved in another manner. The mishna dealing with the halakhot of ritual impurity taught with regard to the two types of rings disjunctively, i.e., referring to different circumstances: A ring that has a seal on it can become ritually impure because it is a man鈥檚 ornament; a ring that does not have a seal on it can become ritually impure because it is a woman鈥檚 ornament.

专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 讗诪专 讟讜诪讗讛 讗砖讘转 拽专诪讬转 讟讜诪讗讛 讻诇讬 诪注砖讛 讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 讜讻诇讬 讛讜讗 砖讘转 诪砖讜诐 诪砖讜讬 讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 讗讬谉 注诇讬讛 讞讜转诐 转讻砖讬讟 讬砖 注诇讬讛 讞讜转诐 诪砖讜讬:

Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k said an additional resolution to the contradiction between the mishnayot: Are you raising a contradiction from the halakhot of ritual impurity to the halakhot of Shabbat? The underlying principles of these areas of halakha are totally different. With regard to ritual impurity, the Torah stated: 鈥淎ll vessels with which labor is done鈥 (Numbers 31:51), and a ring with a seal is a vessel and can therefore become ritually impure. However, with regard to Shabbat, the Torah stated that the prohibition is due to the fact that the object is a burden. Therefore, in a case where there is not a seal on it, it is an ornament and may be worn in the public domain. In a case where there is a seal on it, it is a burden and may not be worn.

讜诇讗 讘诪讞讟 砖讗讬谞讛 谞拽讜讘讛: 诇诪讗讬 讞讝讬讗 讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讗砖讛 讗讜讙专转 讘讛 砖注专讛

We also learned in the mishna: Nor with a needle that is not perforated. The Gemara asks: For what use is that type of needle suited? Rav Yosef said: Since a woman gathers her hair and pins it to her hairnet with the unperforated needle.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讜转讛讜讬 讻讘讬专讬转 讟讛讜专讛 讜转砖转专讬

Abaye said to him: And if so, let the needle be like a ritually pure garter and consequently be permitted. There is a type of garter, a strap that ensures that a woman鈥檚 stockings will not fall, that cannot become ritually impure. A woman is permitted to go out into the public domain wearing it on Shabbat even if it is ornamented. For reasons of modesty, a woman will certainly not remove her garter or display it in the public domain. Similarly, with regard to the needle, the assumption is that a woman will not loosen her hair in the street.

讗诇讗 转专讙诪讗 专讘 讗讚讗 谞专砖讗讛 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 讬讜住祝 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讗砖讛 讞讜诇拽转 讘讛 砖注专讛 讘砖讘转 诇诪讗讬 讞讝讬讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 讟住 砖诇 讝讛讘 讬砖 诇讛 注诇 专讗砖讛 讘讞讜诇 讞讜诇拽转 讘讛 砖注专讛 讘砖讘转 诪谞讬讞转讛 讻谞讙讚 驻讚讞转讛:

Rather, Rav Adda from the city of Naresh explained before Rav Yosef: Since a woman parts her hair with it. The Gemara asks: On Shabbat, when it is prohibited to comb one鈥檚 hair, for what use is this needle suited? Rava said: There is a gold plate on the other end of the needle. On a weekday, she uses it to part her hair. On Shabbat, she inserts the needle into her head covering and lays the gold plate against her forehead for ornamental purposes.

诪转谞讬壮 诇讗 讬爪讗 讛讗讬砖 讘住谞讚诇 讛诪住讜诪专 讜诇讗 讘讬讞讬讚 讘讝诪谉 砖讗讬谉 讘专讙诇讜 诪讻讛 讜诇讗 讘转驻讬诇讬谉 讜诇讗 讘拽诪讬注 讘讝诪谉 砖讗讬谞讜 诪谉 讛诪讜诪讞讛 讜诇讗 讘砖专讬讜谉 讜诇讗 讘拽住讚讗 讜诇讗 讘诪讙驻讬讬诐 讜讗诐 讬爪讗 讗讬谞讜 讞讬讬讘 讞讟讗转:

MISHNA: A man may not go out on Shabbat with a spiked sandal, as will be explained in the Gemara. And he may not go out with a single sandal when there is no wound on his foot. And he may neither go out with phylacteries, nor with an amulet when it is not from an expert, but rather it was written by someone who has not established a reputation as an expert in writing amulets that are effective for those who carry them. And he may neither go out with shiryon, nor with a kasda, nor with maggafayim. These terms will be explained in the Gemara. And if he went out into the public domain with any of these, he is not liable to bring a sin-offering.

讙诪壮 住谞讚诇 讛诪住讜诪专 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: What is the reason that the Sages prohibited going out with a spiked sandal on Shabbat?

讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 砖诇驻讬 讛讙讝专讛 讛讬讜 讜讛讬讜 谞讞讘讗讬谉 讘诪注专讛 讜讗诪专讜 讛谞讻谞住 讬讻谞住 讜讛讬讜爪讗 讗诇 讬爪讗

Shmuel said: They were those who eluded the decrees of religious persecution, and after one of the wars they were hiding in a cave. And those hiding said: One who seeks to enter the cave may enter, but one who seeks to leave the cave may not leave. One leaving has no way to determine whether or not the enemy is lying in wait outside the cave. Therefore, leaving could reveal the presence of those hiding in the cave.

谞讛驻讱 住谞讚诇讜 砖诇 讗讞讚 诪讛谉 讻住讘讜专讬谉 讛诐 讗讞讚 诪讛谉 讬爪讗 讜专讗讜讛讜 讗讜讬讘讬诐 讜注讻砖讜 讘讗讬谉 注诇讬讛谉 讚讞拽讜 讝讛 讘讝讛 讜讛专讙讜 讝讛 讗转 讝讛 讬讜转专 诪诪讛 砖讛专讙讜 讘讛诐 讗讜讬讘讬诐

It happened that the sandal of one of them was reversed, the front of the sandal was in the back, and his footprints appeared like the steps of one leaving the cave. They thought that one of them left and feared that their enemies saw him and were now coming upon them to attack. In their panic, they pushed one another and killed one another in greater numbers than their enemies had killed among them. To commemorate this disaster that resulted from a spiked sandal, they prohibited going out into the public domain with it.

专讘讬 讗讬诇注讗讬 讘谉 讗诇注讝专 讗讜诪专 讘诪注专讛 讛讬讜 讬讜砖讘讬谉 讜砖诪注讜 拽讜诇 诪注诇 讙讘讬 讛诪注专讛 讻住讘讜专讬谉 讛讬讜 砖讘讗讜 注诇讬讛诐 讗讜讬讘讬诐 讚讞拽讜 讝讛 讘讝讛 讜讛专讙讜 讝讛 讗转 讝讛 讬讜转专 诪诪讛 砖讛专讙讜 讘讛谉 讗讜讬讘讬诐

Rabbi Elai ben Elazar says that the reason for the decree was different. Once they were sitting in a cave and heard the sound of a spiked sandal atop the cave. They thought that their enemies had come upon them. They pushed one another and killed one another in greater numbers than their enemies had killed among them.

专诪讬 讘专 讬讞讝拽讗诇 讗诪专 讘讘讬转 讛讻谞住转 讛讬讜 讬讜砖讘讬谉 讜砖诪注讜 拽讜诇 诪讗讞讜专讬 讘讬转 讛讻谞住转 讻住讘讜专讬谉 讛讬讜 砖讘讗讜 注诇讬讛诐 讗讜讬讘讬诐 讚讞拽讜 讝讛 讘讝讛 讜讛专讙讜 讝讛 讗转 讝讛 讬讜转专 诪诪讛 砖讛专讙讜 讘讛谉 讗讜讬讘讬诐

Rami bar Ye岣zkel said that the reason for the decree was different. They were sitting in a synagogue and they heard the sound of a spiked sandal from behind the synagogue. They thought that their enemies had come upon them. They pushed one another, and killed one another in greater numbers than their enemies had killed among them.

讘讗讜转讛 砖注讛 讗诪专讜 讗诇 讬爪讗 讗讚诐 讘住谞讚诇 讛诪住讜诪专 讗讬 讛讻讬 讘讞讜诇 谞诪讬 诇讬转住专 诪注砖讛 讻讬 讛讜讛 讘砖讘转 讛讜讛 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 诇讬砖转专讬 讗诇诪讛 转谞谉

To commemorate that disaster which occurred due to a spiked sandal, at that time they said: A person may not go out with a spiked sandal. The Gemara asks: If so, on a weekday it should also be prohibited. The Gemara answers: When this incident occurred, it was on Shabbat. Therefore, they issued the decree prohibiting the spiked sandal specifically in parallel circumstances. The Gemara challenges: If so, on a Festival wearing a spiked sandal should be permitted. Why, then, did we learn in the same mishna:

诪砖诇讞讬谉 讻诇讬诐 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讘讬谉 转驻讜专讬谉 讘讬谉 砖讗讬谞谉 转驻讜专讬谉 讗讘诇 诇讗 住谞讚诇 讛诪住讜诪专 讜诇讗 诪谞注诇 砖讗讬谞讜 转驻讜专 (讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘)

One may send garments as a gift on a Festival, whether they are sewn or whether they are not sewn, because any object fit for any use on a Festival may be sent as a gift. However, one may neither send a spiked sandal nor an unsewn shoe on a Festival, since using them is prohibited. Apparently, one may not wear a spiked sandal on a Festival.

讘砖讘转 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚讗讬讻讗 讻讬谞讜驻讬讗 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 谞诪讬 讗讬讻讗 讻讬谞讜驻讬讗 转注谞讬转 爪讘讜专 讗讬讻讗 讻讬谞讜驻讬讗 诇讬转住专 诪注砖讛 讻讬 讛讜讛 讘讻讬谞讜驻讬讗 讚讗讬住讜专讗 讛讻讗 讻讬谞讜驻讬讗 讚讛转讬专讗 讛讜讛

The Gemara explains: What is the reason that the Sages prohibited wearing a spiked sandal on Shabbat? It is because there is an assemblage of people. On a Festival too, there is an assemblage of people. The Gemara asks: On a communal fast day, there is an assemblage of people; wearing a spiked sandal should be prohibited then, as well. The Gemara answers: When this incident occurred, it was on a day when there was an assemblage of prohibition, i.e., a day on which performing labor is prohibited. Here, a fast day, is a day when there is an assemblage of permission, a day on which performing labor is permitted, and the two are not comparable. However, extending the scope of commemorative decrees to apply to comparable situations, e.g., from Shabbat to the Festivals, is acceptable.

讜讗驻讬诇讜 诇专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讘谉 注拽讬讘讗 讚讗诪专 诇讗 讗住专讜 讗诇讗 讘讬专讚谉 讜讘住驻讬谞讛 讜讻诪注砖讛 砖讛讬讛 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讬专讚谉 讚砖讗谞讬 诪砖讗专 谞讛专讜转 讗讘诇 讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讜砖讘转 讻讬 讛讚讚讬 谞讬谞讛讜 讚转谞谉 讗讬谉 讘讬谉 讬讜诐 讟讜讘 诇砖讘转 讗诇讗 讗讜讻诇 谞驻砖 讘诇讘讚

And this is true even according to the opinion of Rabbi 岣nina ben Akiva, who said in the following case that a decree issued due to a specific set of circumstances is applied only to those specific circumstances. The ashes of the red heifer were once transported across the Jordan River in a boat. A source of ritual impurity was discovered at the bottom of the boat. The Sages sought to issue a decree prohibiting transport of the ashes of the red heifer over any body of water, sea or river, over a bridge, or in a boat. Rabbi 岣nina ben Akiva said that decrees that are issued due to a specific event apply only to precisely those circumstances. Therefore, he said: They only prohibited transporting the ashes of a red heifer in the Jordan River and in a boat, and like the incident that occurred. However, even according to this approach, which limits restriction, that applies only to the Jordan River and not to other rivers. This is because it is different from other rivers in several respects, e.g., width and depth. However, a Festival and Shabbat are similar to one another, as it was taught in the mishna: The halakhic difference between a Festival and Shabbat is only with regard to preparation of food.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 诇讞讝拽 讗讘诇 诇谞讜讬 诪讜转专 讜讻诪讛 诇谞讜讬 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 讞诪砖 讘讝讛 讜讞诪砖 讘讝讛 讜专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讗诪专 砖讘注 讘讝讛 讜砖讘注 讘讝讛

Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: The Sages taught that a spiked sandal is prohibited only when the nails were placed in the sandal to strengthen its form; however, if they were placed in the sandal for beauty, it is permitted. The Gemara asks: And with how many nails is it considered to be for beauty? Rabbi Yo岣nan said: Five on this sandal and five on that one. And Rabbi 岣nina said: Seven on this one and seven on that one.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诇专讘 砖诪谉 讘专 讗讘讗 讗住讘专讗 诇讱 诇讚讬讚讬 砖转讬诐 诪讻讗谉 讜砖转讬诐 诪讻讗谉 讜讗讞转 讘转专住讬讜转讬讜 诇专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 砖诇砖 诪讻讗谉 讜砖诇砖 诪讻讗谉 讜讗讞转 讘转专住讬讜转讬讜

Rabbi Yo岣nan said to Rav Shemen bar Abba: I will explain it to you: According to my opinion, when inserting nails for beauty, two are inserted from here, its outer side, one near the toes and one near the heel, and two are inserted from there, its inner side, one near the toes and one near the heel, and one is inserted on its straps; and for Rabbi 岣nina, three from here, and three from there, and one on its straps.

诪讬转讬讘讬 住谞讚诇 讛谞讜讟讛 注讜砖讛 诇讜 砖讘注 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 谞转谉 讜专讘讬 诪转讬专 讘砖诇砖 注砖专讛

The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita: For an uneven sandal, whose soles are not straight, one makes seven nails on the bottom to straighten it, and it is then permitted for use on Shabbat; that is the statement of Rabbi Natan. And Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi permits straightening the sandal with thirteen nails.

讘砖诇诪讗 诇专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讛讜讗 讚讗诪专 讻专讘讬 谞转谉 讗诇讗 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讚讗诪专 讻诪讗谉 讛讜讗 讚讗诪专 讻专讘讬 谞讛讜专讗讬 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 谞讛讜专讗讬 讗讜诪专 讞诪砖 诪讜转专 讜砖讘注 讗住讜专

The Gemara notes: Granted, according to Rabbi 岣nina, there is no problem, as he stated his opinion in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Natan. However, Rabbi Yo岣nan, in accordance with whose opinion did he state his opinion? Neither of the tanna鈥檌m agrees with his opinion. The Gemara answers: He stated his opinion in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Nehorai, as it was taught in a baraita that Rabbi Nehorai says: With five nails inserted into the sole, it is permitted to go out into the public domain on Shabbat; and with seven nails, it is prohibited to go out into the public domain on Shabbat.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬驻讛 诇专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 讗转讜谉 转诇诪讬讚讬 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 注讘讬讚讜 讻专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗谞谉 谞注讘讬讚 讻专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗

The Sage, Ifa, said to Rabba bar bar 岣na: You, who are students of Rabbi Yo岣nan, act in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yo岣nan. We will act in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi 岣nina.

讘注讗 诪讬谞讬讛 专讘 讛讜谞讗 诪专讘 讗砖讬 讞诪砖 诪讛讜 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗驻讬诇讜 砖讘注 诪转专 转砖注 诪讗讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗驻讬诇讜 砖诪讜谞讛 讗住讜专

Rav Huna raised a dilemma before Rav Ashi: With a sandal that has five nails inserted into the sole, what is the halakha with regard to going out into the public domain? He said to him: Even with seven nails it is permitted. He asked further: With nine, what is the halakha? He said to him: Even with eight it is prohibited.

讘注讗 诪讬谞讬讛 讛讛讜讗 专爪注谞讗 诪专讘讬 讗诪讬 转驻专讜 诪讘驻谞讬诐 诪讛讜 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪讜转专 讜诇讗 讬讚注谞讗 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗

That shoemaker raised a dilemma before Rabbi Ami: If one sewed the sole and attached it to the sandal from within, what is the halakha? May he go out into the public domain after inserting nails into it? Rabbi Ami said to him: It is permitted, and I do not know the reason.

讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 讜诇讗 讬讚注 诪专 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讻讬讜谉 讚转驻专讜 诪讘驻谞讬诐 讛讜讬 诇讬讛 诪谞注诇 讘住谞讚诇 讙讝专讜 讘讬讛 专讘谞谉 讘诪谞注诇 诇讗 讙讝专讜 讘讬讛 专讘谞谉

Rav Ashi said: And does the Master not know the reason? It is obvious. Since he sewed it from within, it is no longer a sandal, it is a shoe. With regard to a sandal, the Sages issued a decree; with regard to a shoe, the Sages did not issue a decree.

讘注讗 诪讬谞讬讛 专讘讬 讗讘讗 讘专 讝讘讚讗 诪专讘讬 讗讘讗 讘专 讗讘讬谞讗 注砖讗讜 讻诪讬谉 讻诇讘讜住 诪讛讜 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪讜转专 讗讬转诪专 谞诪讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 注砖讗讜 讻诪讬谉 讻诇讘讜住 诪讜转专

Rabbi Abba bar Zavda raised a dilemma before Rabbi Abba bar Avina: If he shaped the nail like tongs [kelavus] by bending a nail with two sharp ends and sticking both ends into the sandal, what is the halakha? May he go out into the public domain with it on Shabbat? He said to him: It is permitted. It was also stated that Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi 岣nina, said: If he shaped it like tongs it is permitted.

讗诪专 专讘 砖砖转 讞讬驻讛讜 讻诇讜 讘诪住诪专讜转 讻讚讬 砖诇讗 转讛讗 拽专拽注 讗讜讻诇转讜 诪讜转专

Rav Sheshet said: If he covered the entire sole in nails, so that contact with the ground will not wear it away, it is permitted to go out with that sandal on Shabbat, since it is no longer the spiked sandal with regard to which they issued a decree.

转谞讬讗 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚专讘 砖砖转 诇讗 讬爪讗 讛讗讬砖 讘住谞讚诇 讛诪住讜诪专 讜诇讗 讬讟讬讬诇 诪讘讬转 诇讘讬转 讗驻诇讜 诪诪讟讛 诇诪讟讛 讗讘诇 诪讟诇讟诇讬谉 讗讜转讜 诇讻住讜转 讘讜 讗转 讛讻诇讬 讜诇住诪讜讱 讘讜 讻专注讬 讛诪讟讛 讜专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜住专 谞砖专讜 专讘 诪诪住诪专讜转讬讜 讜谞砖转讬讬专 讘讜 讗专讘注 讗讜 讞诪砖 诪讜转专 讜专讘讬 诪转讬专 注讚 砖讘注 讞讬驻讛讜 讘注讜专 诪诇诪讟讛 讜拽讘注 诇讜 诪住诪专讜转 诪诇诪注诇讛 诪讜转专 注砖讗讜 讻诪讬谉 讻诇讘讜住 讗讜 讻诪讬谉 讟住 讗讜 讻诪讬谉 讬转讚 讗讜 砖讞讬驻讛讜 讻讜诇讜 讘诪住诪专讜转 讻讚讬 砖诇讗 转讛讗 拽专拽注 讗讜讻诇转讜 诪讜转专

It was taught in the Tosefta in accordance with the opinion of Rav Sheshet: A man may not go out with a spiked sandal, and may not walk with it even from house to house within his courtyard, and may not even walk from bed to bed within his house. However, since the decree was issued with regard to circumstances identical to a specific incident, it only applies to wearing the sandal. Therefore, one may carry the sandal to cover a vessel with it and to support the legs of the bed with it. And Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, prohibits using it for other purposes as well. If most of its nails fell out, and four or five remain in it, it is permitted to go out with it. And Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi permits going out into the public domain with the sandal, even if up to seven nails remain in it. If he covered it with leather from beneath the wood frame of the sandal and inserted nails into it from above, it is permitted. If he made the nail like a tong, or made one end flat like a platter [tas], or sharpened it like a peg, or covered it entirely with nails so that contact with the ground will not wear it away, it is permitted to go out with it.

讛讗 讙讜驻讛 拽砖讬讗 讗诪专转 谞砖专讜 专讘 诪住诪专讜转讬讜 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚谞砖转讬讬专讜 讘讬讛 讟讜讘讗 讜讛讚专 转谞讬 讗专讘注 讗讜 讞诪砖 讗讬谉 讟驻讬 诇讗

The Gemara analyzes the Tosefta cited in support of Rav Sheshet鈥檚 opinion. This Tosefta itself is difficult, as it is self-contradictory. On the one hand you said: If most of its nails fell out it is permitted; apparently, that is the halakha even though many nails remain in the sole. And, however, subsequently it was taught in the Tosefta, without specifying the number of nails that were there from the outset: With four or five nails, yes, going out is permitted; however, with more nails, no, it is prohibited.

讗诪专 专讘 砖砖转 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讻讗谉 砖谞讙诪诪讜 讻讗谉 砖谞注拽专讜:

Rav Sheshet said: This is not difficult, and it can be resolved as follows: Here, where it was permitted to go out wearing the sandal if the majority of nails fell out, it is referring to a case where they were broken, i.e., the heads of the nails were broken off while most of the nail remained embedded in the sole. In that case, it is clearly evident that most of the nails fell out. Here, where it was permitted only if four or five nails remain, it is referring to a case where they were totally removed and only the nails that remain in the shoe are visible.

讗专讘注 讗讜 讞诪砖 诪讜转专: 讛砖转讗 讞诪砖 砖专讬 讗专讘注 诪讬讘注讬讗 讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 讗专讘注 诪住谞讚诇 拽讟谉 讜讞诪砖 诪住谞讚诇 讙讚讜诇:

The Gemara continues its detailed analysis of the Tosefta: It was taught that if most of the nails in the sandal came out and only four or five nails remain, it is permitted to go out wearing it. The Gemara asks: Now, if it was mentioned that when five nails remain, going out is permitted, is it necessary to mention four? Rav 岣sda said that the Tosefta means: If four nails remain from the nails in a small sandal, and if five nails remain from the nails in a large sandal, going out is permitted.

讜专讘讬 诪转讬专 注讚 砖讘注: 讜讛转谞讬讗 专讘讬 诪转讬专 注讚 砖诇砖 注砖专讛 谞讜讟讛 砖讗谞讬

It was taught in the Tosefta: And Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi permits up to seven. The Gemara asks: Wasn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita that for a sandal with an uneven sole, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi permits up to thirteen? The Gemara answers: An uneven sole is different. Since the nails are inserted for the purpose of straightening the sole, it does not have the legal status of a spiked sandal.

讛砖转讗 讚讗转讬转 诇讛讻讬 诇专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 谞诪讬 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 谞讜讟讛 砖讗谞讬

The Gemara notes: Now that you have arrived at this new explanation that a sandal with an uneven sole has a different legal status, for Rabbi Yo岣nan, who stated, contrary to the opinions of the tanna鈥檌m in this baraita, that the number of nails permitted in each sandal is five, this baraita is also not difficult. He could explain that a sandal with an uneven sole is different and requires additional nails. However, in the case of a sandal with an even sole, even the other tanna鈥檌m would not permit that many.

讗诪专 专讘 诪转谞讛 讜讗诪专讬 诇讛 讗诪专 专讘 讗讞讚讘讜讬 讘专 诪转谞讛 讗诪专 专讘 诪转谞讛 讗讬谉 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 驻砖讬讟讗 讬讞讬讚 讜专讘讬诐 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬诐 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 诪住转讘专讗 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘讛讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

Rav Mattana said, and some say Rav A岣dvoi bar Mattana said that Rav Mattana said: The halakha is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, who completely prohibited moving a spiked sandal. The Gemara asks: That is obvious. Isn鈥檛 there a halakhic principle that in a dispute between an individual and the many, the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of the many? The Gemara answers: Lest you say that the rationale for the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, is more reasonable in this case, and therefore the halakha should be ruled in accordance with his opinion. Rav Mattana teaches us that that is not the halakha.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讗讬 诇讗讜 讚拽专讜 诇讬 讘讘诇讗讬 砖专讬 讗讬住讜专讬 砖专讬谞讗 讘讬讛 讟讜讘讗 讜讻诪讛 讘驻讜诪讘讚讬转讗 讗诪专讬谉 注砖专讬谉 讜讗专讘注 讘住讜专讗 讗诪专讬谉 注砖专讬谉 讜转专转讬谉 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 讜住讬诪谞讬讱 注讚 讚讗转讗 诪驻讜诪讘讚讬转讗 诇住讜专讗 讞住专 转专转讬:

Rabbi 岣yya said: If not for the fact that they would call me: Babylonian who permits prohibitions, I would permit the insertion of many nails into a spiked sandal. The Gemara asks: And how many nails would he have permitted? In Pumbedita they said: Twenty-four nails. In Sura they said: Twenty-two. Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k said: And this is your mnemonic to remember which opinion was stated in Sura and which opinion was stated in Pumbedita: Until Rabbi 岣yya came from Pumbedita to Sura he lost two nails from his shoe. Since the route that Rabbi 岣yya took from Pumbedita to Eretz Yisrael passed through Sura, one could say: Due to the rigors of the journey, two nails fell from the sandal of Rabbi 岣yya between Pumbedita and Sura.

讜诇讗 讘讬讞讬讚 讘讝诪谉 砖讗讬谉 讘专讙诇讜 诪讻讛:

It was taught in the mishna: And he may not go out with a single sandal when there is no wound on his foot.

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.

Iyar is sponsored by Aviva and Benny Adler in memory of Yosef ben Zvi HaKohen, Dr. Joseph Kahane z"l and Yehuda Aryeh Leib ben Yisachar Dov Barash, Ari Adler z"l.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

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

Copy of Back to school.._

Back to School

My children spent this past weekend preparing to return to school after nearly two months at home. As they tried...
1

The Power of Jewelry in Chapter Six

The juxtaposition of two sugyot on daf 62: is striking. On one hand, the daf goes into a historical (gory)...
daf yomi One week at a time (1)

Shabbat 55-60 – Daf Yomi: One Week at a Time

We will review Daf 55-60 this week. After finishing the 5th chapter, we will start the 6th chapter and discuss...
talking talmud_square

Shabbat 60: The Story of the Nailed Sandal

Parallel structuring, on what a man cannot wear out on Shabbat. The hobnailed sandal and the reason it was prohibited...

Shabbat 60

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Shabbat 60

讘拽讜诇讘 讛诇讱 讗讞专 诪住诪专讜转讬讜 讘住讜诇诐 讛诇讱 讗讞专 砖诇讬讘讜转讬讜 讘注专住讗 讛诇讱 讗讞专 砖诇砖诇讜转讬讜 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讛讻诇 讛讜诇讱 讗讞专 讛诪注诪讬讚

With a hanging board, follow its nails, upon which the objects hang. With a ladder, follow its rungs. With a large scale, follow its chains and not its baseplates. And the Rabbis say, with regard to all of these vessels, everything follows the support. The legal status of the object is not determined by the component of the vessel most significant in terms of function. It is determined by the component most significant in terms of structure. Therefore, according to Rabbi Ne岣mya there is a distinction, even in the halakhot of Shabbat, between a ring with a seal and a ring without a seal, as in his opinion the seal constitutes the primary function of the ring. However, the Rabbis hold with regard to the halakhot of ritual impurity that the essential part of the ring is the ring itself, not the seal. Therefore, they permit going out into the public domain on Shabbat even with a ring that has a seal.

专讘讗 讗诪专 诇爪讚讚讬诐 拽转谞讬 讬砖 注诇讬讛 讞讜转诐 转讻砖讬讟 讚讗讬砖 讗讬谉 注诇讬讛 讞讜转诐 转讻砖讬讟 讚讗砖讛

Rava said: This contradiction can be resolved in another manner. The mishna dealing with the halakhot of ritual impurity taught with regard to the two types of rings disjunctively, i.e., referring to different circumstances: A ring that has a seal on it can become ritually impure because it is a man鈥檚 ornament; a ring that does not have a seal on it can become ritually impure because it is a woman鈥檚 ornament.

专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 讗诪专 讟讜诪讗讛 讗砖讘转 拽专诪讬转 讟讜诪讗讛 讻诇讬 诪注砖讛 讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 讜讻诇讬 讛讜讗 砖讘转 诪砖讜诐 诪砖讜讬 讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 讗讬谉 注诇讬讛 讞讜转诐 转讻砖讬讟 讬砖 注诇讬讛 讞讜转诐 诪砖讜讬:

Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k said an additional resolution to the contradiction between the mishnayot: Are you raising a contradiction from the halakhot of ritual impurity to the halakhot of Shabbat? The underlying principles of these areas of halakha are totally different. With regard to ritual impurity, the Torah stated: 鈥淎ll vessels with which labor is done鈥 (Numbers 31:51), and a ring with a seal is a vessel and can therefore become ritually impure. However, with regard to Shabbat, the Torah stated that the prohibition is due to the fact that the object is a burden. Therefore, in a case where there is not a seal on it, it is an ornament and may be worn in the public domain. In a case where there is a seal on it, it is a burden and may not be worn.

讜诇讗 讘诪讞讟 砖讗讬谞讛 谞拽讜讘讛: 诇诪讗讬 讞讝讬讗 讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讗砖讛 讗讜讙专转 讘讛 砖注专讛

We also learned in the mishna: Nor with a needle that is not perforated. The Gemara asks: For what use is that type of needle suited? Rav Yosef said: Since a woman gathers her hair and pins it to her hairnet with the unperforated needle.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讜转讛讜讬 讻讘讬专讬转 讟讛讜专讛 讜转砖转专讬

Abaye said to him: And if so, let the needle be like a ritually pure garter and consequently be permitted. There is a type of garter, a strap that ensures that a woman鈥檚 stockings will not fall, that cannot become ritually impure. A woman is permitted to go out into the public domain wearing it on Shabbat even if it is ornamented. For reasons of modesty, a woman will certainly not remove her garter or display it in the public domain. Similarly, with regard to the needle, the assumption is that a woman will not loosen her hair in the street.

讗诇讗 转专讙诪讗 专讘 讗讚讗 谞专砖讗讛 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 讬讜住祝 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讗砖讛 讞讜诇拽转 讘讛 砖注专讛 讘砖讘转 诇诪讗讬 讞讝讬讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 讟住 砖诇 讝讛讘 讬砖 诇讛 注诇 专讗砖讛 讘讞讜诇 讞讜诇拽转 讘讛 砖注专讛 讘砖讘转 诪谞讬讞转讛 讻谞讙讚 驻讚讞转讛:

Rather, Rav Adda from the city of Naresh explained before Rav Yosef: Since a woman parts her hair with it. The Gemara asks: On Shabbat, when it is prohibited to comb one鈥檚 hair, for what use is this needle suited? Rava said: There is a gold plate on the other end of the needle. On a weekday, she uses it to part her hair. On Shabbat, she inserts the needle into her head covering and lays the gold plate against her forehead for ornamental purposes.

诪转谞讬壮 诇讗 讬爪讗 讛讗讬砖 讘住谞讚诇 讛诪住讜诪专 讜诇讗 讘讬讞讬讚 讘讝诪谉 砖讗讬谉 讘专讙诇讜 诪讻讛 讜诇讗 讘转驻讬诇讬谉 讜诇讗 讘拽诪讬注 讘讝诪谉 砖讗讬谞讜 诪谉 讛诪讜诪讞讛 讜诇讗 讘砖专讬讜谉 讜诇讗 讘拽住讚讗 讜诇讗 讘诪讙驻讬讬诐 讜讗诐 讬爪讗 讗讬谞讜 讞讬讬讘 讞讟讗转:

MISHNA: A man may not go out on Shabbat with a spiked sandal, as will be explained in the Gemara. And he may not go out with a single sandal when there is no wound on his foot. And he may neither go out with phylacteries, nor with an amulet when it is not from an expert, but rather it was written by someone who has not established a reputation as an expert in writing amulets that are effective for those who carry them. And he may neither go out with shiryon, nor with a kasda, nor with maggafayim. These terms will be explained in the Gemara. And if he went out into the public domain with any of these, he is not liable to bring a sin-offering.

讙诪壮 住谞讚诇 讛诪住讜诪专 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: What is the reason that the Sages prohibited going out with a spiked sandal on Shabbat?

讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 砖诇驻讬 讛讙讝专讛 讛讬讜 讜讛讬讜 谞讞讘讗讬谉 讘诪注专讛 讜讗诪专讜 讛谞讻谞住 讬讻谞住 讜讛讬讜爪讗 讗诇 讬爪讗

Shmuel said: They were those who eluded the decrees of religious persecution, and after one of the wars they were hiding in a cave. And those hiding said: One who seeks to enter the cave may enter, but one who seeks to leave the cave may not leave. One leaving has no way to determine whether or not the enemy is lying in wait outside the cave. Therefore, leaving could reveal the presence of those hiding in the cave.

谞讛驻讱 住谞讚诇讜 砖诇 讗讞讚 诪讛谉 讻住讘讜专讬谉 讛诐 讗讞讚 诪讛谉 讬爪讗 讜专讗讜讛讜 讗讜讬讘讬诐 讜注讻砖讜 讘讗讬谉 注诇讬讛谉 讚讞拽讜 讝讛 讘讝讛 讜讛专讙讜 讝讛 讗转 讝讛 讬讜转专 诪诪讛 砖讛专讙讜 讘讛诐 讗讜讬讘讬诐

It happened that the sandal of one of them was reversed, the front of the sandal was in the back, and his footprints appeared like the steps of one leaving the cave. They thought that one of them left and feared that their enemies saw him and were now coming upon them to attack. In their panic, they pushed one another and killed one another in greater numbers than their enemies had killed among them. To commemorate this disaster that resulted from a spiked sandal, they prohibited going out into the public domain with it.

专讘讬 讗讬诇注讗讬 讘谉 讗诇注讝专 讗讜诪专 讘诪注专讛 讛讬讜 讬讜砖讘讬谉 讜砖诪注讜 拽讜诇 诪注诇 讙讘讬 讛诪注专讛 讻住讘讜专讬谉 讛讬讜 砖讘讗讜 注诇讬讛诐 讗讜讬讘讬诐 讚讞拽讜 讝讛 讘讝讛 讜讛专讙讜 讝讛 讗转 讝讛 讬讜转专 诪诪讛 砖讛专讙讜 讘讛谉 讗讜讬讘讬诐

Rabbi Elai ben Elazar says that the reason for the decree was different. Once they were sitting in a cave and heard the sound of a spiked sandal atop the cave. They thought that their enemies had come upon them. They pushed one another and killed one another in greater numbers than their enemies had killed among them.

专诪讬 讘专 讬讞讝拽讗诇 讗诪专 讘讘讬转 讛讻谞住转 讛讬讜 讬讜砖讘讬谉 讜砖诪注讜 拽讜诇 诪讗讞讜专讬 讘讬转 讛讻谞住转 讻住讘讜专讬谉 讛讬讜 砖讘讗讜 注诇讬讛诐 讗讜讬讘讬诐 讚讞拽讜 讝讛 讘讝讛 讜讛专讙讜 讝讛 讗转 讝讛 讬讜转专 诪诪讛 砖讛专讙讜 讘讛谉 讗讜讬讘讬诐

Rami bar Ye岣zkel said that the reason for the decree was different. They were sitting in a synagogue and they heard the sound of a spiked sandal from behind the synagogue. They thought that their enemies had come upon them. They pushed one another, and killed one another in greater numbers than their enemies had killed among them.

讘讗讜转讛 砖注讛 讗诪专讜 讗诇 讬爪讗 讗讚诐 讘住谞讚诇 讛诪住讜诪专 讗讬 讛讻讬 讘讞讜诇 谞诪讬 诇讬转住专 诪注砖讛 讻讬 讛讜讛 讘砖讘转 讛讜讛 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 诇讬砖转专讬 讗诇诪讛 转谞谉

To commemorate that disaster which occurred due to a spiked sandal, at that time they said: A person may not go out with a spiked sandal. The Gemara asks: If so, on a weekday it should also be prohibited. The Gemara answers: When this incident occurred, it was on Shabbat. Therefore, they issued the decree prohibiting the spiked sandal specifically in parallel circumstances. The Gemara challenges: If so, on a Festival wearing a spiked sandal should be permitted. Why, then, did we learn in the same mishna:

诪砖诇讞讬谉 讻诇讬诐 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讘讬谉 转驻讜专讬谉 讘讬谉 砖讗讬谞谉 转驻讜专讬谉 讗讘诇 诇讗 住谞讚诇 讛诪住讜诪专 讜诇讗 诪谞注诇 砖讗讬谞讜 转驻讜专 (讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘)

One may send garments as a gift on a Festival, whether they are sewn or whether they are not sewn, because any object fit for any use on a Festival may be sent as a gift. However, one may neither send a spiked sandal nor an unsewn shoe on a Festival, since using them is prohibited. Apparently, one may not wear a spiked sandal on a Festival.

讘砖讘转 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚讗讬讻讗 讻讬谞讜驻讬讗 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 谞诪讬 讗讬讻讗 讻讬谞讜驻讬讗 转注谞讬转 爪讘讜专 讗讬讻讗 讻讬谞讜驻讬讗 诇讬转住专 诪注砖讛 讻讬 讛讜讛 讘讻讬谞讜驻讬讗 讚讗讬住讜专讗 讛讻讗 讻讬谞讜驻讬讗 讚讛转讬专讗 讛讜讛

The Gemara explains: What is the reason that the Sages prohibited wearing a spiked sandal on Shabbat? It is because there is an assemblage of people. On a Festival too, there is an assemblage of people. The Gemara asks: On a communal fast day, there is an assemblage of people; wearing a spiked sandal should be prohibited then, as well. The Gemara answers: When this incident occurred, it was on a day when there was an assemblage of prohibition, i.e., a day on which performing labor is prohibited. Here, a fast day, is a day when there is an assemblage of permission, a day on which performing labor is permitted, and the two are not comparable. However, extending the scope of commemorative decrees to apply to comparable situations, e.g., from Shabbat to the Festivals, is acceptable.

讜讗驻讬诇讜 诇专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讘谉 注拽讬讘讗 讚讗诪专 诇讗 讗住专讜 讗诇讗 讘讬专讚谉 讜讘住驻讬谞讛 讜讻诪注砖讛 砖讛讬讛 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讬专讚谉 讚砖讗谞讬 诪砖讗专 谞讛专讜转 讗讘诇 讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讜砖讘转 讻讬 讛讚讚讬 谞讬谞讛讜 讚转谞谉 讗讬谉 讘讬谉 讬讜诐 讟讜讘 诇砖讘转 讗诇讗 讗讜讻诇 谞驻砖 讘诇讘讚

And this is true even according to the opinion of Rabbi 岣nina ben Akiva, who said in the following case that a decree issued due to a specific set of circumstances is applied only to those specific circumstances. The ashes of the red heifer were once transported across the Jordan River in a boat. A source of ritual impurity was discovered at the bottom of the boat. The Sages sought to issue a decree prohibiting transport of the ashes of the red heifer over any body of water, sea or river, over a bridge, or in a boat. Rabbi 岣nina ben Akiva said that decrees that are issued due to a specific event apply only to precisely those circumstances. Therefore, he said: They only prohibited transporting the ashes of a red heifer in the Jordan River and in a boat, and like the incident that occurred. However, even according to this approach, which limits restriction, that applies only to the Jordan River and not to other rivers. This is because it is different from other rivers in several respects, e.g., width and depth. However, a Festival and Shabbat are similar to one another, as it was taught in the mishna: The halakhic difference between a Festival and Shabbat is only with regard to preparation of food.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 诇讞讝拽 讗讘诇 诇谞讜讬 诪讜转专 讜讻诪讛 诇谞讜讬 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 讞诪砖 讘讝讛 讜讞诪砖 讘讝讛 讜专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讗诪专 砖讘注 讘讝讛 讜砖讘注 讘讝讛

Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: The Sages taught that a spiked sandal is prohibited only when the nails were placed in the sandal to strengthen its form; however, if they were placed in the sandal for beauty, it is permitted. The Gemara asks: And with how many nails is it considered to be for beauty? Rabbi Yo岣nan said: Five on this sandal and five on that one. And Rabbi 岣nina said: Seven on this one and seven on that one.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诇专讘 砖诪谉 讘专 讗讘讗 讗住讘专讗 诇讱 诇讚讬讚讬 砖转讬诐 诪讻讗谉 讜砖转讬诐 诪讻讗谉 讜讗讞转 讘转专住讬讜转讬讜 诇专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 砖诇砖 诪讻讗谉 讜砖诇砖 诪讻讗谉 讜讗讞转 讘转专住讬讜转讬讜

Rabbi Yo岣nan said to Rav Shemen bar Abba: I will explain it to you: According to my opinion, when inserting nails for beauty, two are inserted from here, its outer side, one near the toes and one near the heel, and two are inserted from there, its inner side, one near the toes and one near the heel, and one is inserted on its straps; and for Rabbi 岣nina, three from here, and three from there, and one on its straps.

诪讬转讬讘讬 住谞讚诇 讛谞讜讟讛 注讜砖讛 诇讜 砖讘注 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 谞转谉 讜专讘讬 诪转讬专 讘砖诇砖 注砖专讛

The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita: For an uneven sandal, whose soles are not straight, one makes seven nails on the bottom to straighten it, and it is then permitted for use on Shabbat; that is the statement of Rabbi Natan. And Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi permits straightening the sandal with thirteen nails.

讘砖诇诪讗 诇专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讛讜讗 讚讗诪专 讻专讘讬 谞转谉 讗诇讗 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讚讗诪专 讻诪讗谉 讛讜讗 讚讗诪专 讻专讘讬 谞讛讜专讗讬 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 谞讛讜专讗讬 讗讜诪专 讞诪砖 诪讜转专 讜砖讘注 讗住讜专

The Gemara notes: Granted, according to Rabbi 岣nina, there is no problem, as he stated his opinion in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Natan. However, Rabbi Yo岣nan, in accordance with whose opinion did he state his opinion? Neither of the tanna鈥檌m agrees with his opinion. The Gemara answers: He stated his opinion in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Nehorai, as it was taught in a baraita that Rabbi Nehorai says: With five nails inserted into the sole, it is permitted to go out into the public domain on Shabbat; and with seven nails, it is prohibited to go out into the public domain on Shabbat.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬驻讛 诇专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 讗转讜谉 转诇诪讬讚讬 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 注讘讬讚讜 讻专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗谞谉 谞注讘讬讚 讻专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗

The Sage, Ifa, said to Rabba bar bar 岣na: You, who are students of Rabbi Yo岣nan, act in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yo岣nan. We will act in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi 岣nina.

讘注讗 诪讬谞讬讛 专讘 讛讜谞讗 诪专讘 讗砖讬 讞诪砖 诪讛讜 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗驻讬诇讜 砖讘注 诪转专 转砖注 诪讗讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗驻讬诇讜 砖诪讜谞讛 讗住讜专

Rav Huna raised a dilemma before Rav Ashi: With a sandal that has five nails inserted into the sole, what is the halakha with regard to going out into the public domain? He said to him: Even with seven nails it is permitted. He asked further: With nine, what is the halakha? He said to him: Even with eight it is prohibited.

讘注讗 诪讬谞讬讛 讛讛讜讗 专爪注谞讗 诪专讘讬 讗诪讬 转驻专讜 诪讘驻谞讬诐 诪讛讜 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪讜转专 讜诇讗 讬讚注谞讗 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗

That shoemaker raised a dilemma before Rabbi Ami: If one sewed the sole and attached it to the sandal from within, what is the halakha? May he go out into the public domain after inserting nails into it? Rabbi Ami said to him: It is permitted, and I do not know the reason.

讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 讜诇讗 讬讚注 诪专 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讻讬讜谉 讚转驻专讜 诪讘驻谞讬诐 讛讜讬 诇讬讛 诪谞注诇 讘住谞讚诇 讙讝专讜 讘讬讛 专讘谞谉 讘诪谞注诇 诇讗 讙讝专讜 讘讬讛 专讘谞谉

Rav Ashi said: And does the Master not know the reason? It is obvious. Since he sewed it from within, it is no longer a sandal, it is a shoe. With regard to a sandal, the Sages issued a decree; with regard to a shoe, the Sages did not issue a decree.

讘注讗 诪讬谞讬讛 专讘讬 讗讘讗 讘专 讝讘讚讗 诪专讘讬 讗讘讗 讘专 讗讘讬谞讗 注砖讗讜 讻诪讬谉 讻诇讘讜住 诪讛讜 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪讜转专 讗讬转诪专 谞诪讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 注砖讗讜 讻诪讬谉 讻诇讘讜住 诪讜转专

Rabbi Abba bar Zavda raised a dilemma before Rabbi Abba bar Avina: If he shaped the nail like tongs [kelavus] by bending a nail with two sharp ends and sticking both ends into the sandal, what is the halakha? May he go out into the public domain with it on Shabbat? He said to him: It is permitted. It was also stated that Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi 岣nina, said: If he shaped it like tongs it is permitted.

讗诪专 专讘 砖砖转 讞讬驻讛讜 讻诇讜 讘诪住诪专讜转 讻讚讬 砖诇讗 转讛讗 拽专拽注 讗讜讻诇转讜 诪讜转专

Rav Sheshet said: If he covered the entire sole in nails, so that contact with the ground will not wear it away, it is permitted to go out with that sandal on Shabbat, since it is no longer the spiked sandal with regard to which they issued a decree.

转谞讬讗 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚专讘 砖砖转 诇讗 讬爪讗 讛讗讬砖 讘住谞讚诇 讛诪住讜诪专 讜诇讗 讬讟讬讬诇 诪讘讬转 诇讘讬转 讗驻诇讜 诪诪讟讛 诇诪讟讛 讗讘诇 诪讟诇讟诇讬谉 讗讜转讜 诇讻住讜转 讘讜 讗转 讛讻诇讬 讜诇住诪讜讱 讘讜 讻专注讬 讛诪讟讛 讜专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜住专 谞砖专讜 专讘 诪诪住诪专讜转讬讜 讜谞砖转讬讬专 讘讜 讗专讘注 讗讜 讞诪砖 诪讜转专 讜专讘讬 诪转讬专 注讚 砖讘注 讞讬驻讛讜 讘注讜专 诪诇诪讟讛 讜拽讘注 诇讜 诪住诪专讜转 诪诇诪注诇讛 诪讜转专 注砖讗讜 讻诪讬谉 讻诇讘讜住 讗讜 讻诪讬谉 讟住 讗讜 讻诪讬谉 讬转讚 讗讜 砖讞讬驻讛讜 讻讜诇讜 讘诪住诪专讜转 讻讚讬 砖诇讗 转讛讗 拽专拽注 讗讜讻诇转讜 诪讜转专

It was taught in the Tosefta in accordance with the opinion of Rav Sheshet: A man may not go out with a spiked sandal, and may not walk with it even from house to house within his courtyard, and may not even walk from bed to bed within his house. However, since the decree was issued with regard to circumstances identical to a specific incident, it only applies to wearing the sandal. Therefore, one may carry the sandal to cover a vessel with it and to support the legs of the bed with it. And Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, prohibits using it for other purposes as well. If most of its nails fell out, and four or five remain in it, it is permitted to go out with it. And Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi permits going out into the public domain with the sandal, even if up to seven nails remain in it. If he covered it with leather from beneath the wood frame of the sandal and inserted nails into it from above, it is permitted. If he made the nail like a tong, or made one end flat like a platter [tas], or sharpened it like a peg, or covered it entirely with nails so that contact with the ground will not wear it away, it is permitted to go out with it.

讛讗 讙讜驻讛 拽砖讬讗 讗诪专转 谞砖专讜 专讘 诪住诪专讜转讬讜 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚谞砖转讬讬专讜 讘讬讛 讟讜讘讗 讜讛讚专 转谞讬 讗专讘注 讗讜 讞诪砖 讗讬谉 讟驻讬 诇讗

The Gemara analyzes the Tosefta cited in support of Rav Sheshet鈥檚 opinion. This Tosefta itself is difficult, as it is self-contradictory. On the one hand you said: If most of its nails fell out it is permitted; apparently, that is the halakha even though many nails remain in the sole. And, however, subsequently it was taught in the Tosefta, without specifying the number of nails that were there from the outset: With four or five nails, yes, going out is permitted; however, with more nails, no, it is prohibited.

讗诪专 专讘 砖砖转 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讻讗谉 砖谞讙诪诪讜 讻讗谉 砖谞注拽专讜:

Rav Sheshet said: This is not difficult, and it can be resolved as follows: Here, where it was permitted to go out wearing the sandal if the majority of nails fell out, it is referring to a case where they were broken, i.e., the heads of the nails were broken off while most of the nail remained embedded in the sole. In that case, it is clearly evident that most of the nails fell out. Here, where it was permitted only if four or five nails remain, it is referring to a case where they were totally removed and only the nails that remain in the shoe are visible.

讗专讘注 讗讜 讞诪砖 诪讜转专: 讛砖转讗 讞诪砖 砖专讬 讗专讘注 诪讬讘注讬讗 讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 讗专讘注 诪住谞讚诇 拽讟谉 讜讞诪砖 诪住谞讚诇 讙讚讜诇:

The Gemara continues its detailed analysis of the Tosefta: It was taught that if most of the nails in the sandal came out and only four or five nails remain, it is permitted to go out wearing it. The Gemara asks: Now, if it was mentioned that when five nails remain, going out is permitted, is it necessary to mention four? Rav 岣sda said that the Tosefta means: If four nails remain from the nails in a small sandal, and if five nails remain from the nails in a large sandal, going out is permitted.

讜专讘讬 诪转讬专 注讚 砖讘注: 讜讛转谞讬讗 专讘讬 诪转讬专 注讚 砖诇砖 注砖专讛 谞讜讟讛 砖讗谞讬

It was taught in the Tosefta: And Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi permits up to seven. The Gemara asks: Wasn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita that for a sandal with an uneven sole, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi permits up to thirteen? The Gemara answers: An uneven sole is different. Since the nails are inserted for the purpose of straightening the sole, it does not have the legal status of a spiked sandal.

讛砖转讗 讚讗转讬转 诇讛讻讬 诇专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 谞诪讬 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 谞讜讟讛 砖讗谞讬

The Gemara notes: Now that you have arrived at this new explanation that a sandal with an uneven sole has a different legal status, for Rabbi Yo岣nan, who stated, contrary to the opinions of the tanna鈥檌m in this baraita, that the number of nails permitted in each sandal is five, this baraita is also not difficult. He could explain that a sandal with an uneven sole is different and requires additional nails. However, in the case of a sandal with an even sole, even the other tanna鈥檌m would not permit that many.

讗诪专 专讘 诪转谞讛 讜讗诪专讬 诇讛 讗诪专 专讘 讗讞讚讘讜讬 讘专 诪转谞讛 讗诪专 专讘 诪转谞讛 讗讬谉 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 驻砖讬讟讗 讬讞讬讚 讜专讘讬诐 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬诐 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 诪住转讘专讗 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘讛讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

Rav Mattana said, and some say Rav A岣dvoi bar Mattana said that Rav Mattana said: The halakha is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, who completely prohibited moving a spiked sandal. The Gemara asks: That is obvious. Isn鈥檛 there a halakhic principle that in a dispute between an individual and the many, the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of the many? The Gemara answers: Lest you say that the rationale for the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, is more reasonable in this case, and therefore the halakha should be ruled in accordance with his opinion. Rav Mattana teaches us that that is not the halakha.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讗讬 诇讗讜 讚拽专讜 诇讬 讘讘诇讗讬 砖专讬 讗讬住讜专讬 砖专讬谞讗 讘讬讛 讟讜讘讗 讜讻诪讛 讘驻讜诪讘讚讬转讗 讗诪专讬谉 注砖专讬谉 讜讗专讘注 讘住讜专讗 讗诪专讬谉 注砖专讬谉 讜转专转讬谉 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 讜住讬诪谞讬讱 注讚 讚讗转讗 诪驻讜诪讘讚讬转讗 诇住讜专讗 讞住专 转专转讬:

Rabbi 岣yya said: If not for the fact that they would call me: Babylonian who permits prohibitions, I would permit the insertion of many nails into a spiked sandal. The Gemara asks: And how many nails would he have permitted? In Pumbedita they said: Twenty-four nails. In Sura they said: Twenty-two. Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k said: And this is your mnemonic to remember which opinion was stated in Sura and which opinion was stated in Pumbedita: Until Rabbi 岣yya came from Pumbedita to Sura he lost two nails from his shoe. Since the route that Rabbi 岣yya took from Pumbedita to Eretz Yisrael passed through Sura, one could say: Due to the rigors of the journey, two nails fell from the sandal of Rabbi 岣yya between Pumbedita and Sura.

讜诇讗 讘讬讞讬讚 讘讝诪谉 砖讗讬谉 讘专讙诇讜 诪讻讛:

It was taught in the mishna: And he may not go out with a single sandal when there is no wound on his foot.

Scroll To Top