Shabbat 121
הא יש ברגלו מכה נפיק בהי מינייהו נפיק אמר רב הונא באותה שיש בה מכה אלמא קסבר סנדל לשום צער עביד
Hence if he has a wound on his foot, he may go out. With which of them does he go out?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Wearing the sandal on which foot? ');"><sup>1</sup></span>
וחייא בר רב אמר באותה שאין בה מכה אלמא קסבר לשום תענוג עביד וזו שיש בה מכה מכתה מוכחת עליה
— R. Huna said: With that [worn on the foot] which has the wound. This proves that he holds that the purpose of the sandal is [to save him] pain. Hiyya b. Rab said: With that [worn] where there is no wound. This proves that he holds that it is employed as a luxury, while this [foot] that has a wound, its wound is evidence for it.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For the sandal is obviously being worn merely as a luxury, and no one will suspect him of carrying the other (v. p. 280, n. 4) which he is not wearing, because he cannot put it on on account of the wound. ');"><sup>2</sup></span>
ואף רבי יוחנן סבר לה להא דרב הונא דאמר ליה ר' יוחנן לרב שמן בר אבא הב לי מסנאי יהב ליה דימין אמר ליה עשיתו מכה
Now, R. Johanan too holds as R. Huna. For R. Johanan said to R. Shamen b. Abba: Give me my sandals. When he gave him the right one, he [R. Johanan] observed, You treat it as though it had a wound.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Johanan holds that the left sandal must be put on first (infra). Hence if he put on the right, the other foot would have to be left unshod, and people would think that his right foot was wounded. Thus he holds with R. Huna that the sandal is donned on the wounded foot as a protection. ');"><sup>3</sup></span>
ודילמא כחייא בר רב ס"ל והכי קאמר עשית של שמאל מכה
[No]. Perhaps he agrees with Hiyya b. Rab, and he meant thus: You treat the left [foot] as through it had a wound? Now, R. Johanan [here] follows his general view. For R. Johanan said: Like tefillin, so are shoes: just as tefillin [are donned] on the left [hand], so are shoes [put on] the left [foot first]. An objection is raised: When one puts on his shoes, he must put on the right first and then the left? — Said R. Joseph: Now that it was taught thus, while R. Johanan said the reverse, he who acts in either way acts [well].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [It is left to each individual to decide for himself whether to assign pride of place to the right or left side each enjoys in some respects distinction over the other. V. Tosaf.]. ');"><sup>4</sup></span>
ואזדא רבי יוחנן לטעמיה דאמר ר' יוחנן כתפילין כך מנעלין מה תפילין בשמאל אף מנעלין בשמאל
Said Abaye to him: But perhaps R. Johanan did not hear this Baraitha, but if he had heard it, he would have retracted? Or perhaps he heard it and held that the <i>halachah</i> is not as that Mishnah?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It is really a Baraitha, not a Mishnah. ');"><sup>5</sup></span>
מיתיבי כשהוא נועל נועל של ימין ואחר כך נועל של שמאל
R. Nahman b. Isaac said: A God-fearing person satisfies both views. And who is that? Mar, the son of Rabina. What did he do? He put on the right foot [sandal] but did not tie it. Then he put on the left, tied it, and then tied the right [sandal]. R. Ashi said: I saw that R. Kahana was not particular.
אמר רב יוסף השתא דתניא הכי ואמר רבי יוחנן הכי דעבד הכי עבד ודעבד הכי עבד
Our Rabbis taught: When one puts on his shoes, he must put on the right first and then the left; when he removes [them], he must remove the left [first] and then the right.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The right half of the body being stronger, more honour must be shown to it. Removing the left first is likewise a mark of honour to the right, for the right shoe remains longer on the foot. ');"><sup>6</sup></span>
אמר ליה אביי דילמא רבי יוחנן הא מתני' לא הוה שמיע ליה ואי הוה שמיע ליה הוה הדר ביה ואי נמי שמיע ליה וקסבר אין הלכה כאותה משנה
When one washes, he must [first] wash the right [hand, foot] and then the left. When one anoints [himself] with oil,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 275, n. 8. ');"><sup>7</sup></span>
אמר רב נחמן בר יצחק ירא שמים יוצא ידי שתיהן ומנו מר בריה דרבנא היכי עביד סיים דימיניה ולא קטר וסיים דשמאליה וקטר והדר קטר דימיניה אמר רב אשי חזינא לרב כהנא דלא קפיד
he must anoint the right and then the left. But one who desires to anoint his whole body must anoint his head first, because it is the king of all the limbs.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the most important. ');"><sup>8</sup></span>
תנו רבנן כשהוא נועל נועל של ימין ואחר כך נועל של שמאל כשהוא חולץ חולץ של שמאל ואח"כ חולץ של ימין
NOR WITH TEFILLIN. R. Safra said: Do not think that this is [only] according to the view that the Sabbath is not a time for tefillin; but even on the view that the Sabbath is a time for tefillin,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. 'Er. 95b. ');"><sup>9</sup></span>
כשהוא רוחץ רוחץ של ימין ואח"כ רוחץ של שמאל כשהוא סך סך של ימין ואח"כ של שמאל והרוצה לסוך כל גופו סך ראשו תחילה מפני שהוא מלך על כל איבריו:
one must not go out [with them], lest he come to carry them [four cubits] in the street.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In his hand, in case of need. ');"><sup>10</sup></span>
ולא בתפילין: אמר רב ספרא לא תימא אליבא דמ"ד שבת לאו זמן תפילין הוא אלא אפילו למ"ד שבת זמן תפילין הוא לא יצא דילמא אתי לאיתויי ברה"ר
Others learn this in reference to the last clause: YET IF HE GOES OUT, HE DOES NOT INCUR A SIN OFFERING: Said R. Safra: Do not think that this is [only] according to the view that the Sabbath is a time for tefillin; but even on the view that the Sabbath is not a time for tefillin, he is [nevertheless] not liable to a sin-offering. What is the reason? He treats it as a garment.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' By donning it in the usual manner. ');"><sup>11</sup></span>
ואיכא דמתני לה אסיפא ואם יצא אינו חייב חטאת אמר רב ספרא לא תימא אליבא דמ"ד שבת זמן תפילין הוא אלא אפילו למ"ד שבת לאו זמן תפילין הוא אינו חייב חטאת מ"ט דרך מלבוש עבידא.
NOR WITH AN AMULET, IF IT IS NOT FROM AN EXPERT. R. Papa said: Do not think that both the man [issuing it] and the amulet must be approved; but as long as the man is approved, even if the amulet is not approved.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It may be worn on the Sabbath. ');"><sup>12</sup></span>
ולא בקמיע בזמן שאינו מן המומחה: אמר רב פפא לא תימא עד דמומחה גברא ומומחה קמיע אלא כיון דמומחה גברא אף על גב דלא מומחה קמיע
This may be proved too for it is stated, NOR WITH AN AMULET, IF IT IS NOT FROM AN EXPERT; but it is not stated, if it is not approved.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Heb. mumheh describes both the practitioner who issues it and the charm itself. The Mishnah, however, refers only to the former. ');"><sup>13</sup></span>
ת"ר איזהו קמיע מומחה כל שריפא ושנה ושלש אחד קמיע של כתב ואחד קמיע של עיקרין אחד חולה שיש בו סכנה ואחד חולה שאין בו סכנה
Our Rabbis taught: What is an approved amulet? One that has healed [once], a second time and a third time; whether it is an amulet in writing or an amulet of roots, whether it is for an invalid whose life is endangered or for an invalid whose life is not endangered. [It is permitted] not [only] for a person who has [already] had an epileptic fit, but even [merely] to ward it off.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Even if the wearer has not actually suffered but fears an attack of epilepsy. ');"><sup>14</sup></span>