Commentary for Shabbat 131:18

ורבא התם

with a wooden shoe, or with a left-footed [shoe] placed on the right foot, the <i>halizah</i> is valid. Now we observed, Which Tanna [rules thus]?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That a wooden shoe comes within the term and she shall loose his shoe' (Deut. XXV, 9). ');">¹⁸</span> Said Samuel, R. Meir: For we learnt: A STUMP-LEGGED PERSON MAY GO OUT WITH HIS WOODEN STUMP: THIS IS R. MEIR'S VIEW; WHILE R. JOSE FORBIDS IT.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Meir regards even a hollowed-out log as a shoe, though it is unusual, and the same applies here, though wood is an unusual material for a shoe. Thus Samuel quotes Rab's version of the Mishnah. ');">¹⁹</span> Now, R. Huna too retracted. For it was taught: A lime burner's shoe<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Rashi states two views: (i) that it was of wood; (ii) that it was of straw. Rashi and Tosaf. incline to the latter view. ');">²⁰</span> is unclean as midras, a woman may perform <i>halizah</i> therewith, and one may not go out with it on the Sabbath: this is R. Akiba's view; but they [the Sages] did not agree with him. But it was taught:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Wilna Gaon emends: but we learnt, since the citation is from a Mishnah. ');">²¹</span> They agree with him? — Said R. Huna, Who agreed with him? R. Meir.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. n. 6; the same argument applies here. ');">²²</span> And who did not agree with him? R. Jose.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Thus he accepts our version of the Mishnah. ');">²³</span> R. Joseph said: Who did not agree with him? R. Johanan b. Nuri. For we learnt: A hive of straw and a tube of canes:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Or reeds, Wilna Gaon emends: A straw mat and a tube of straw. ');">²⁴</span> R. Akiba declares it unclean; while R. Johanan b. Nuri declares it clean.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The former holds that straw is the same as wood, which is susceptible to uncleanness, while the latter regards it as a different material. ');">²⁵</span> The Master said: 'A lime-burner's shoe is unclean as midras'. But it is not made for walking?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It was put on over the ordinary leather shoe to protect the latter from the burning action of the lime. In order to be subject to midras uncleanness an object must be used for walking, sitting, or lying upon. ');">²⁶</span> — Said R. Aha son of R. 'Ulla: That is because the lime-burner walks in it until he comes home. AND IF IT HAS A RECEPTACLE FOR PADS, IT IS UNCLEAN. Abaye said: It has the uncleanness of a corpse, but not midras; Raba said: It is unclean even as midras.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 'The uncleanness of a corpse' is mentioned merely as an example of any ordinary defilement, where the uncleanness of the object defiled is one degree less than that of the object which defiles it, and which requires either actual contact or that the object be under the same covering as the corpse. Thus Abaye holds that it attains even a primary degree of uncleanness (ab hatum'ah) through a corpse, which itself possesses a supra-primary degree of uncleanness, but not through the midras of a zab. Abaye holds that the wooden stump is not made primarily for leaning upon. ');">²⁷</span> Said Raba: Whence do I know it? For we learnt: A child's waggonette<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Rashi: on which it is carried, thus a perambulator. Tosaf. with which a child learns to walk, by holding on to it. ');">²⁸</span> is unclean as midras. But Abaye said: There he [the child] leans upon it, but here he [the stump-legged person] does not lean upon it. Abaye said: How do I know it? Because it was taught: A staff of old men is completely clean.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., it is susceptible neither to midras nor to any other form of defilement. It is not susceptible to midras because it is not made for leaning, since one walks on his feet. This shows that though one does lean on it occasionally, yet since that is not its main purpose, it is not defiled as midras, and the same applies here. — It is not susceptible to other forms of defilement because it is a wooden utensil without a cavity (p. 238, n. 6). ');">²⁹</span> And Raba?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' How does he rebut this proof? ');">³⁰</span> — There

Explore commentary for Shabbat 131:18. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.