Shabbat 112b — the Talmud in English

And this teaches us that when we say that if the left one was removed with the right one, its removal is valid —

where ![](pamud.bmp "

")

that for its purpose —

it is an implement.

But here —

for its purpose it is not an implement.

And we raise a difficulty:

and did Rabbi Yohanan say this,

that the halakha is according to Rabbi Yehuda, that if the outer strap is removed, it is not an implement for any matter!?

But Rabbi Yohanan said: The halakha is according to an unattributed Mishna.

And we learned

in tractate Kelim:

A sandal whose

only

one of its ears was severed, and he repaired it [and the same law applies if he has not yet repaired it. See Rashi] — it is still an implement. Therefore, if the sandal belonged to a man with a flux, it is

—and the same law applies if he has not yet repaired it; see Rashi—it is still considered a utensil. Therefore, if the sandal belonged to a man with a flux, it is

impure with midras impurity,

for its impurity did not cease as a primary source of impurity.

What, is it not —

it makes no difference whether

its

inner ear was severed, and it makes no difference whether

its

outer one was severed!?

And we see that even with regard to impurity, the halakha is that even if the outer one was removed, it still has the designation of a sandal.

And we answer:

No,

the intention of the Mishna is when the

inner one specifically was severed.

And we object:

But

if its

outer ear was severed, what [is the law]?

According to your words —

it is pure,

the sandal.

If so,

that one must distinguish between when its inner ear was severed and when its outer one was severed,

if so, this is difficult:

rather than teaching

later in that Mishna a distinction between when the first ear was severed and when the second ear was severed:

If

its

second ear was severed, and he repaired it —

the sandal is pure

the sandal

from

the impurity of

midras,

which is a primary source of impurity, because the designation of the first sandal was nullified from it when its second ear was also severed. [And once he repairs it, we say: “A new face has come here”].

But

still

the repaired sandal is impure

the repaired sandal with the impurity of

midras contact,

which is a first-degree impurity, since we regard it as though the sandal touched the previous sandal at the time when its second ear was severed, and that sandal had midras impurity.

And since its two ears were severed, it is necessarily the case that its outer ear and its inner ear were severed, for a sandal in its ordinary form has only two ears.

And if so, it would have been preferable that

we distinguish in that same case,

when the first ear itself was severed, and say:

When are these words said,

that the sandal continues to be impure with midras impurity after the removal of one of its ears —

when

the

inner ear was severed.

But

if the one ear that was severed is the

outer ear —

then it is

pure!?

Rabbi Yitzhak ben Yosef said: Let our Mishna,

which deals with midras impurity, be

with regard to a sandal that has four ears and four straps.

And the intention of the Mishna is not to say that when the second ear is severed it is pure when its outer and inner ears were severed; rather, its two outer ears were severed, in which case it becomes pure, because it has no outer ear, and this is according to Rabbi Yehuda.

And it is preferable to answer in this way, in order

not to undermine the words of Rabbi Yohanan,

who said that the halakha is according to Rabbi Yehuda, and also said that the halakha is according to an unattributed Mishna.

When Ravin came, he said:

Rav Hanan bar Abba said in the name of Rav: The halakha is according to Rabbi Yehuda.

And Rabbi Yohanan said: The halakha is not according to Rabbi Yehuda.

And we raise a difficulty against the words of Ravin in the name of Rabbi Yohanan:

And did Rabbi Yohanan say this,

that the halakha is not according to Rabbi Yehuda?

But since Rabbi Yohanan answers according to Rabbi Yehuda, conclude from it

that Rabbi Yohanan

holds according to Rabbi Yehuda!?

And we answer:

They are amoraim, and according to Rabbi Yohanan

they disagree as to what his view is.

We learned there: All the utensils of householders —

their measure,

the measure of their holes, which renders them pure from being fit to receive impurity, is a hole

like

the size of

pomegranates.

Hezekiah asked: If

the utensil was perforated to the measure of

that which allows an olive to emerge,

so that an olive could emerge through the hole,

and he sealed it,

and it was again perforated

near it to the measure of

that which allows an olive to emerge, and he sealed it,

until he completed it

through holes

to “that which allows a pomegranate to emerge” —

what is the law?

Rabbi Yohanan said to him: Master, you taught us: A sandal whose one ear was severed, and he repaired it —

it is impure with midras impurity.

But if, after he repaired the first ear,

the

ear

second was severed, and he repaired it —

it is pure from midras, but impure with midras contact;.

And we said to you: What is different about

when its

first ear was severed,

so that it continues to be impure with midras impurity —

for the second one remains.

If so, when its

second ear was severed,

it should likewise continue to be impure with midras impurity — for

he repairs it,

the

first ear has already been repaired!?

And you told us

to answer

it:

after the second ear was severed, even if it was repaired —

a new face

of a sandal

has come here.

Here too,

in the case of an utensil that was perforated and sealed, and again perforated and sealed —

a new face

of an utensil

has come here.

He applied to him

Hezekiah concerning Rabbi Yohanan:

This one is not —

a human being!

He [Rabbi Yohanan] is not a human being but an angel!

Some say: One such as this —

is a human being!

This is a man in every respect!

Rabbi Zeira said in the name of Rava bar Zimuna:

If

the

earlier ones

are considered as though they are

sons of angels —

we

are considered

sons of men.

And if the earlier ones

are considered

sons of men —

we

are considered

like donkeys.

And

even

not like the donkey of Rabbi Hanina ben Dosa or that of Rabbi Pinhas ben Yair, but —

like ordinary donkeys.

We learned in the Mishna:

And

he ties

wine and oil flasks.

And we inquire concerning it:

It is obvious

that these are not permanent knots, since he must open them frequently!?

And we answer:

It is necessary [to state this] only because he has two ears,

ears with which he ties them.

Lest you say that he nullifies one of them,

and leaves the knot [in place] —

it teaches us

that he unties both knots of the two ears.

We further learned: He ties a garment over the mouth of a

meat pot.

And we inquire concerning it:

It is obvious!

And we answer:

It is necessary [to state this] only because it has,

the pot,

a shilakha,

another opening, through which he can remove the food.

Lest you say that he nullifies it,

the knot of the garment, since he has no need to open it in order to remove the food,

it teaches us

that he does not leave it tied.

We learned in the Mishna:

Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov says: He ties it

to a rope at the entrance before an animal, so that it should not go out.

And we inquire concerning it:

It is obvious,

for he must untie the knot so that he can take it out?

And we answer:

It is necessary [to state this] only because, for the purpose of tying the entrance, it has

for the purpose of tying the entrance

two ropes,

ropes, one above the other. [Another explanation: he ties two knots on the two sides of the entrance, since the rope had not been tied from the previous day even on one side].