Babylonian Talmud: Tractate Shabbath

Folio 112a

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.¹  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:²  you might say, One of these is disregarded:³  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:⁴  you might say, She will remove it [thus]:⁵  hence he informs us that a woman is careful over⁶  her hair and will [first] untie it.

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];⁷  'he is not liable, but it is forbidden' — that refers to [a knot] of the Rabbis;⁸  'it is permitted in the first place', refers to [the knots] of the townspeople of Mahoza.⁹  [The rulings on] sandals too are not contradictory: when it states that 'one is liable to a sin-offering', it refers to [sandals] of travellers¹⁰  tied by cobblers; one is not liable yet it is forbidden', refers to amateur knots¹¹  tied by [the wearers] themselves; 'it is permitted at the outset', refers to sandals in which two go out,¹²  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 understand¹³  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?¹⁴  — 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.

R. Jeremiah was walking behind R. Abbahu in a karmelith, when the lace of his sandal snapped.¹⁵  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 of¹⁶  R. Joseph,¹⁷  when the lace of his sandal snapped. What shall I do with it? asked he. — Let it be, he replied.¹⁸  Wherein does it differ from R. Jeremiah's [case]? — There it was not guarded;¹⁹  here it is guarded. But it is still a utensil,²⁰  seeing that I could change it from the right [foot] to the left?²¹ — Said he to him: Since R. Johanan explained [the law] on R. Judah's view, it follows that the halachah is as R. Judah.²²  To what does this refer? — For it was taught: If the two ears of the sandal²³  or its two strappings are broken, or if the entire sole is removed, it is clean.²⁴  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;²⁵  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,²⁶  but not in respect to halizah.²⁷  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 halizah, where it is not a utensil? Surely we learnt: If she removes the left[-foot shoe] from the right foot,²⁸  the halizah is valid?²⁹  [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 halizah, 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 halizah is valid, only where it is a 'utensil' for its own function;³⁰  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?'³¹  In truth, [R. Johanan referred] to R. Judah's view: say, And it is likewise so in respect to halizah, and he informs us this: When do we say, If she removes the left [-foot shoe] from the right foot the halizah is valid, [only] where

1. For though temporary only, as stated supra 111b, they are frequently left there a long time, and so are forbidden.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. Not closely fitting, so that it can be removed from the head even when tied.
5. Without untying the ribbons.
6. Lit., 'spares'.
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. 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.
10. Taya'a, specially Arabian caravan merchants.
11. Lit., 'balls'.
12. 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.
13. Lit., 'it presents a difficulty to me'.
14. Abaye asked this: why do you think that it ought to be permitted?
15. With the result that the sandal fell off his foot.
16. Tosaf. in Hag. 23a s.v. [H] reads: was walking behind.
17. Rashi: in a courtyard.
18. Do not pick it (the sandal) up to put away.
19. In a karmelith others might take it.
20. Why should it not be allowed to handle the sandal?
21. 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.
22. That it ceases to be a 'utensil' if the outer is broken.
23. At the back, by means of which the sandal is held when it is tied up.
24. For here too it ceases to be a 'utensil'.
25. For it is still a 'utensil'.
26. 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.
27. V. Glos.
28. In the ceremony of halizah the shoe must be removed from the right foot.
29. 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.
30. I.e., it is at least fully fit for the left foot.
31. Even in respect of its own foot.

it is a 'utensil' for its own function, but here it is not a 'utensil' for its own function.¹

Now, did R. Johanan say thus?²  Surely R. Johanan said, The halachah is as an anonymous Mishnah,³  and we learnt: If one of the ears of a sandal is broken and he repairs it, it [the sandal] is unclean as midras.⁴  (If the second is broken [too] and he repairs it, it is clean in that it is not defiled as midras,⁵  but it is unclean as that touched by midras.)⁶  Does not [this mean that] there is no difference whether it is the inner or the outer?⁷  — No, [it refers] only [to] the inner. Then what if the outer [is broken]? [Would it be] clean! If so, instead of teaching, If the second is broken [too] and he repairs it, it is clean in that it is not defiled as midras, but it is unclean as that touched by midras, let him [the Tanna] draw a distinction in that very matter and teach: When is that? if the inner is broken; but [if] the outer [is broken] it is clean? — Said R. Isaac b. Joseph: Let our Mishnah⁸  treat of a sandal which has four ears and four strappings, so as not to overthrow⁹  the words of R. Johanan.

When Rabin came,¹⁰  he said: R. Hanan b. Abba said in Rab's name: The halachah is as R. Judah; while R. Johanan said: The halachah is not as R. Judah. But did R. Johanan say thus: surely since R. Johanan explained [the law] on the basis of R. Judah's view, it follows that he agrees with R. Judah? — There is [a controversy of] amoraim as to R. Johanan' s opinion.

We learnt elsewhere: As for all utensils belonging to private people, their standards are [holes as large] as pomegranates.¹¹  Hezekiah asked: What if it [a utensil] receives a hole [large enough] for an olive to fall through, and he [the owner] closes it, then it receives another hole¹²  [large enough] for an olive to fall through, and he closes it, [and so on] until it is made large enough for a pomegranate to fall through? Said R. Johanan to him, You have taught us: If one of the ears of a sandal is broken and he repairs it, it [the sandal] is unclean as midras; if the second is broken and he repairs it, it is clean in that it is not defiled as midras, but it is unclean as that touched by midras. Now we asked you: Why is it different [when] the first [is broken], — because the second is sound? But [when] the second [too] is broken, the first is [already] repaired? And you answered us: A new entity¹³  has arrived hither;¹⁴  here too, a new entity has arrived hither! [Thereupon] he [Hezekiah] exclaimed concerning him, This one is not the son of man!¹⁵  Others say, Such a one is indeed the son of man!¹⁶  R. Zera said in Raba b. Zimuna's name: If the earlier [scholars] were sons of angels, we are sons of men; and if the earlier [scholars] were sons of men, we are like asses, and not [even] like asses of R. Hanina b. Dosa and R. Phinehas b. Jair,¹⁷  but like other asses.

PITCHERS OF WINE OR OIL. But that is obvious? — This is necessary only where they have two spouts;¹⁸  you might say, He [the owner] may completely disregard one:¹⁹  therefore he [the Tanna] informs us [that we do not fear this].

THE MEAT POT. But that is obvious? — This is necessary only where it has a [screwed-in] stopper: you might say, He [the owner] may completely abandon [it]:²⁰  hence he informs us [that we do not fear this].

R. ELIEZER B. JACOB SAID: ONE MAY TIE, etc. But that is obvious? This is necessary only where there are two cords: you might say,

1. And this is the statement referred to above that R. Johanan explained the law on the view of R. Judah.
2. That the halachah is according to R. Judah.
3. I.e., one not taught in the name of any Rabbi.
4. If it belonged to a zab. V. p. 312, n. 9.
5. I.e., it loses the midras defilement which it contracted previously.
6. I.e., it is unclean in the first degree, which is one degree below midras itself. It retains this lesser degree of defilement, because we regard it as having touched itself, as it were, when it was unclean as midras. — Rashal deletes the bracketed passage here.
7. Which is against R. Judah.
8. The cited anonymous Mishnah (Kel. XXVI, 4).
9. Lit., 'break'.
10. V. P. 12, n. 9.
11. If they are unclean, and then broken, the holes being large enough to allow a pomegranate to fall through, they cease to be utensils and become clean; cf. supra 95b.
12. At the side of the first.
13. Lit., 'face'.
14. I.e., subsequent to the shoe being defiled as midras, the breaking of both loops and their mending so change the shoe as to make it virtually a different utensil, not the one which was defiled.
15. He is superhuman.
16. He is a man in the full sense of the word.
17. The allusions are explained in Hul. 7a and Ta'an. 24a.
18. And the Mishnah refers to tying them up.
19. Lit., 'make it as nought', and use the other only; cf. p. 544, n. 7.
20. Sc. the cloth which he ties on top, as he can unscrew the stopper and take the food out that way.