Shabbat 223

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

The knot which is tied through the nose ring and the knot which is tied through the ship's ring: [for these] there is indeed no guilt, nevertheless there is a prohibition.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For though temporary only, as stated supra 111b, they are frequently left there a long time, and so are forbidden. ');">¹</span> But some are permitted at the outset. And which are they? [A WOMAN] MAY TIE UP THE OPENING OF HER CHEMISE. THE OPENING OF HER CHEMISE. But that is obvious? — This is necessary only where it has two pairs of bands:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'entrances'. The chemise ties up by two pairs of bands or strings. It can be put on and removed even when one set is actually tied, thought of course with difficulty. ');">²</span>

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

you might say, One of these is disregarded:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., when she removes it she may leave one pair tied, which makes it permanent knot; since we do not know which may be left, both should be forbidden. ');">³</span> hence he informs us [that we do not fear this]. AND THE RIBBONS OF HER HAIR-NET. But that is obvious? — This is necessary [to teach] only where it is roomy:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Not closely fitting, so that it can be removed from the head even when tied. ');">⁴</span>

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

you might say, She will remove it [thus]:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Without untying the ribbons. ');">⁵</span> hence he informs us that a woman is careful over<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'spares'. ');">⁶</span> her hair and will [first] untie it.

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

AND THE LACES OF HER SHOES OR SANDALS. It was stated: If one unties the laces of his shoes or sandals, — one [Baraitha] taught: He is liable to a sin-offering; another taught: He is not liable, yet it is forbidden; while a third taught: It is permitted in the first place. Thus [the rulings on] shoes are contradictory, and [those on] sandals are contradictory? [The rulings on] shoes are not contradictory: when it teaches, 'he is liable to a sin-offering', it refers to cobblers' [knots];<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Rashi: when the cobbler inserts the lace in the shoe, he ties it there permanently. — Perhaps the shoes and its laces were so arranged that part of the lace was permanently fastened. ');">⁷</span> 'he is not liable, but it is forbidden' — that refers to [a knot] of the Rabbis;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sometimes they tied it very loosely, so that the shoe could be removed and put on without untying. Thus whilst not actually permanent to involve a sin-offering, it is semi-permanent, hence forbidden. ');">⁸</span> 'it is permitted in the first place', refers to [the knots] of the townspeople of Mahoza.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who were particular that all their garments should fit exactly. Hence their shoes too were tightly fastened and had to be untied every time they were put on or off. perhaps they are mentioned in particular because being well-to-do they thought more of dress; cf. Obermeyer, p. 173. ');">⁹</span>

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

[The rulings on] sandals too are not contradictory: when it states that 'one is liable to a sin-offering', it refers to [sandals] of travellers<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Taya'a, specially Arabian caravan merchants. ');">¹⁰</span> tied by cobblers; one is not liable yet it is forbidden', refers to amateur knots<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'balls'. ');">¹¹</span> tied by [the wearers] themselves; 'it is permitted at the outset', refers to sandals in which two go out,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' They are worn by two different people on occasion. Hence they must be tied exactly each time, and therefore the knot is temporary. — In the other two the differences are the same as in the case of shoes. ');">¹²</span>

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 א"ל כה"ג מאי א"ל חייב חטאת

as was the case with Rab Judah. For Rab Judah, brother of R. Salla the Pious, had a pair of sandals, at times he went out in them, at others his child. He went to Abaye and asked him, How is it in such a case? — One is liable to a sin-offering [for tying them], he replied. I do not even understand<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'it presents a difficulty to me'. ');">¹³</span> why [though] one is not liable for this yet it is forbidden, and you tell me that one is liable to a sin-offering. What is the reason?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Abaye asked this: why do you think that it ought to be permitted? ');">¹⁴</span> — Because on weekdays too, he replied, at times I go out in them, at others the child. In that case, said he, it is permitted at the outset.

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

R. Jeremiah was walking behind R. Abbahu in a <i>karmelith</i>, when the lace of his sandal snapped.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' With the result that the sandal fell off his foot. ');">¹⁵</span> What shall I do with it? enquired he. — Take a moist reed that is fit for an animal's food and wind it about it, he replied. Abaye was standing in front of<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Tosaf. in Hag. 23a s.v. [H] reads: was walking behind. ');">¹⁶</span> R. Joseph,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Rashi: in a courtyard. ');">¹⁷</span>

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

when the lace of his sandal snapped. What shall I do with it? asked he. — Let it be, he replied.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Do not pick it (the sandal) up to put away. ');">¹⁸</span> Wherein does it differ from R. Jeremiah's [case]? — There it was not guarded;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In a karmelith others might take it. ');">¹⁹</span> here it is guarded. But it is still a utensil,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Why should it not be allowed to handle the sandal? ');">²⁰</span>

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 ר' יהודה אומר נפסקה פנימית טמא החיצונה טהור ואמר עולא ואיתימא רבה בר בר חנה אמר ר' יוחנן כמחלוקת לענין טומאה כך מחלוקת לענין שבת אבל לא לענין חליצה

seeing that I could change it from the right [foot] to the left?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A sandal had two strappings, perhaps like loops, through which the laces were inserted, one on the outside and the other on the inside of the foot. Now, if the inner one is broken, it can be mended, and though it is not very seemly to walk in sandals with the strappings or laces merely knotted together, nevertheless it does not matter, as it is not very noticeable on the inner part of the foot. But if the outer one is broken, one would not walk out in it until a new one is inserted; consequently it ceases to be a 'utensil', and may not be handled on the Sabbath (cf. p. 125, n. 3). In Abaye's case the outer strap was broken, hence R. Joseph's ruling. But Abaye argued that by changing the sandal to the other foot this would become the inner strapping, hence it should be permitted. Presumably their sandals were not shaped exactly to the foot, and were interchangeable. ');">²¹</span> — Said he to him: Since R. Johanan explained [the law] on R. Judah's view, it follows that the <i>halachah</i> is as R. Judah.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That it ceases to be a 'utensil' if the outer is broken. ');">²²</span> To what does this refer? — For it was taught: If the two ears of the sandal<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' At the back, by means of which the sandal is held when it is tied up. ');">²³</span>

והוינן בה [ר' 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

or its two strappings are broken, or if the entire sole is removed, it is clean.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For here too it ceases to be a 'utensil'. ');">²⁴</span> If one of its ears or strappings [is broken], or if the greater part of the sole is removed, it is unclean. R. Judah said: If the inner one is broken, it is unclean;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For it is still a 'utensil'. ');">²⁵</span> if the outer, it is clean. Whereon 'Ulla-others State, Rabbah b. Bar Hanah said in R. Johanan's name: Just as the controversy in respect to uncleanness, so is there a controversy in respect to the Sabbath,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If it is a utensil in respect of the former, it is likewise so in respect of the latter, and may be handled on the Sabbath. ');">²⁶</span>

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. ');">²⁷</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. ');">²⁸</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. ');">²⁹</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. ');">³⁰</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. ');">³¹</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