Talmud for Shabbat 223:11
אימר דאמרי' חלצה של שמאל בימין חליצת' כשרה היכא דלמילתי' מנא הוא הכא למילתיה לאו מנא הוא דהא אמר ר' יהודה נפסקה החיצונה טהור אלמא לאו מנא הוא לעולם אליבא דר' יהודה אימא וכן לחליצה והא קמשמע לן דכי אמרינן חלצה של שמאל בשל ימין חליצתה כשרה היכא
but not in respect to <i>halizah</i>.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Glos. ');"><sup>27</sup></span> Now we discussed this: To whose [view] does R. Johanan refer? Shall we say, To that of the Rabbis, [and he states], since it is a utensil in respect to uncleanness, it is also so in respect to the Sabbath, but not in respect to <i>halizah</i>, where it is not a utensil? Surely we learnt: If she removes the left[-foot shoe] from the right foot,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the ceremony of halizah the shoe must be removed from the right foot. ');"><sup>28</sup></span> the <i>halizah</i> is valid?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because they are interchangeable. But then it should also be regarded as a shoe in respect to halizah even if the outer strapping is broken. ');"><sup>29</sup></span> [Shall we] on the other hand [say that he refers] to R. Judah's [ruling]: [and means], since it is not a 'utensil' in respect to defilement, it is not a 'utensil' in respect to the Sabbath either, but that is not so in respect to <i>halizah</i>, where it is a 'utensil': [it may be asked against this]: Perhaps we rule, If she removes the left[-foot shoe] from the right foot the <i>halizah</i> is valid, only where it is a 'utensil' for its own function;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., it is at least fully fit for the left foot. ');"><sup>30</sup></span> but here it is not a 'utensil' for its own function, seeing that R. Judah said: If the outer is broken, it is clean, which proves that it is not a 'utensil?'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Even in respect of its own foot. ');"><sup>31</sup></span> In truth, [R. Johanan referred] to R. Judah's view: say, And it is likewise so in respect to <i>halizah</i>, and he informs us this: When do we say, If she removes the left [-foot shoe] from the right foot the <i>halizah</i> is valid, [only] where
Jerusalem Talmud Shabbat
Ritual impurity biblically is restricted to Jewish persons, food, vessels and tools, and a leprous house. If a vessel or tool was damaged beyond repair, it becomes ritually pure. As usual, impure means “a possible candidate for impurity” and pure “unable to become impure.” Rebbi Jehudah holds that people will repair even serious damage to their shoes if it can be done so as not to be noticed in public. The rabbis hold that even in such cases, people will not repair severely damaged shoes.
R. Jehudah holds that a person will repair sandals when the repair is not immediately visible from the outside. Therefore, if a strap or hole for the shoelaces is torn at the instep, towards the other foot, the shoe remains usable. The majority holds that one torn strap or a partially torn sole can always be repaired. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rebbi Tevele, Ḥanin bar Abba in the name of Rav: Practice follows Rebbi Jehuda as far as the Sabbath is concerned104The same statement in Babli, Šabbat 112b..