Shabbat 60b (ס:) — the Talmud in English

And we raise an objection: If so,

on a Festival, it should be permitted

to go out wearing a nail-studded sandal.

But did we not learn

in tractate Beitza:

But one may not

send another person a gift on a Festival except for items needed for the Festival. And therefore one may not send

a nail-studded sandal, nor an unstitched shoe,

because they are not fit for use on the Festival .

We learn from here that the decree concerning a nail-studded sandal applies even on a Festival.

And we answer:

On Shabbat, what is the reason

that they decreed this? Because

there is a gathering ,

as the people cease from work and assemble in synagogues and batei-midrash. Just as the incident in which one man killed another occurred when a crowd had assembled, so too it occurred on Shabbat, when people assemble; and therefore

on a Festival as well

they decreed this because

there is a gathering.

And we raise an objection: If so,

a public fast

that also

has a gathering

for prayer,

should be prohibited

by the decree concerning the sandal?

And we answer: The

incident

of the killing with a sandal

occurred

at a gathering where work was prohibited,

as it was a time when work was prohibited. But

here,

on a public fast,

it was a gathering where work was permitted,

and it is not comparable to the incident that occurred .

And

the decree they enacted for a Festival as well applies

even according to Rabbi Ḥanina ben Akiva, who says

regarding the decree of the Sages prohibiting transporting the water of the ashes of the red heifer on a boat because of an incident that occurred [the water of the ashes of the red heifer was transported on a boat, and an olive-bulk of a corpse was found embedded in the floor of the boat, rendering the water impure], and Rabbi Ḥanina held that

they prohibited it only on the Jordan and on a boat, as in the incident that occurred.

Nevertheless, Rabbi Ḥanina agrees here, regarding the decree concerning the sandal, that they decreed it for Festivals as well.

This is because a distinction must be made:

This applies to the Jordan,

for which they decreed specifically,

because it is different

from other rivers in its width or depth.

But a Festival and Shabbat—

they are equivalent.

For

this

we learned

in tractate Megilla:

The only difference between a Festival and Shabbat is

the permission to perform work for the sake of

food alone.

Rav Yehuda said in the name of Shmuel:

Since the Sages decreed only in a manner resembling the event that caused them to issue the decree, one must distinguish in the decree concerning the sandal:

They taught

in the Mishna that one may not go out

except

with a sandal whose nails are made

to reinforce

the heel, since that was the form of the sandal in the incident in which people were killed by it.

But

nails made

for adornment—

it is permitted

to go out wearing such a sandal.

And how many

nails may there be in a sandal

for adornment

in order for it to be permitted to go out wearing it? The amoraim disagree about this:

Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Five on this side and five on that side,

in each sandal.

And Rabbi Ḥanina said: Seven on this side and seven on that side—

in each sandal.

Rabbi Yoḥanan said to Rav Shemen bar Abba: I will explain it to you:

According to me,

where are the five nails in the sandal placed?

Two on this side,

on the outer side—one near the toes and one near the heel.

And two on this side,

on the inner side, toward the space between the feet.

And one in its straps,

in the sandal’s straps.

But

according to Rabbi Ḥanina,

who holds that one may go out wearing a sandal containing seven nails in each sandal,

three on this side,

toward the outside,

and three on this side,

toward the inside,

and one in its straps,

in the straps.

Meytivi

to raise an objection against Rabbi Yoḥanan.

It was taught in a beraita:

A sandal that tilts,

whose thickness is not even throughout the sandal, and which must be raised so that it will be even throughout,

one makes seven

nails for it,

the words of Rabbi Natan.

And Rabbi permits thirteen

nails.

And this is difficult:

Granted, according to Rabbi Ḥanina, who says

seven nails,

in accordance with Rabbi Natan.

But Rabbi Yoḥanan, who says

five nails—

in accordance with whom

does he rule?

And we answer:

He,

Rabbi Yoḥanan,

rules in accordance with Rabbi Nehorai.

As it was taught: Rabbi Nehorai says: Five

nails

are permitted, and seven are prohibited.

Ife said

[that was his name]

to Rabba bar bar Ḥana: You, the disciples of Rabbi Yoḥanan,

make

five

in accordance with Rabbi Yoḥanan. We—

will make

seven

in accordance with Rabbi

Ḥanina .

Rav Huna asked Rav Ashi:

According to Rabbi Ḥanina, if there are

five

nails in a sandal,

what is

the ruling concerning going out with it on Shabbat?

He said to him: Even seven

nails

are permitted,

and all the more so five.

He asked him further:

Nine

nails—

what

is the ruling concerning going out with it? He said to him:

Even eight are prohibited .

A certain shoemaker asked Rabbi Ami: If he stitched it

to the sandal

from the inside,

in a leather shoe,

what is

the ruling concerning placing nails in it?

He said to him:

I heard from Rabbi Yoḥanan that in such a case it is

permitted.

But I do not know for what reason

he permitted it.

Rav Ashi said to him: And

does the Master

not know for what reason

Rabbi Yoḥanan permitted it?

The reason for the permission is:

Since he stitched it

to the sandal

from the inside, it is a shoe.

Only

with regard to a sandal did the Sages decree

in a manner resembling the incident that occurred;

with regard to a shoe the Sages did not decree.

Rabbi Abba bar Zavda asked Rabbi Abba bar Avina: If he fashioned it

for the nail

in the form of a curved hook,

whose two ends he bends and drives both of them into the sandal—

what is

the ruling concerning going out with it on Shabbat?

He said to him: It is permitted,

since it has been changed from other nails, it does not resemble the incident that occurred, and they did not decree with regard to it.

It was also stated: Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, said: If he fashioned it in the form of a curved hook, it is permitted.

Rav Sheshet said: If he covered it

the sandal

entirely

from below

with nails so that the ground would not consume it,

the sandal—

it is permitted.

It was taught in accordance with Rav Sheshet: A man may not go out wearing a nail-studded sandal, and he may not stroll

in the sandal

from house to house .

Moreover,

even from one bed to another

within the house it is prohibited to put on this sandal.

But one may move it to cover a vessel with it or to support the legs of a bed,

and there is no prohibition of muktze involved, because it is a “vessel.”

But Rabbi Eliezer, son of Rabbi Shimon, prohibits

moving it for any use, as a decree lest one come to put it on.

If most of its nails fell out, and four or five remained,

nails—

it is permitted. [This will be explained below.]

And it will be explained below.

And Rabbi permits

even if

up to seven remained.

If he covered it with leather from below and fixed nails in it from above—

it is permitted,

because it does not resemble the sandal involved in the incident because of which the Sages enacted the decree concerning the sandal.

If he fashioned it in the form of a curved hook, or in the form of a plate, or in the form of

a peg, or if he covered it entirely with nails so that the ground would not consume it—

it is permitted.

And we examine it:

This itself

of the beraita

is difficult.

is difficult.

You said: If most of its nails fell out,

it is permitted, implying that whenever only a “minority” of the nails remain, it is permitted,

even though many

nails

remained in it,

more than four or five.

And then it teaches

that it is permitted specifically when

four or five

remain, implying that if

more remain, it is not

permitted by the Sages.

Rav Sheshet said: It is not difficult:

Here,

where they permitted it when most of the nails fell out, it is

when they were blunted—

the upper part of most of the nail was broken off, and they permitted it because the nails no longer remained in their original form.

Here,

where they prohibited it when more than five nails remained, it is

when they were uprooted

from their places, and it is no longer apparent that there had previously been additional nails; whenever the change is not apparent, its status is that of a sandal in which nails were initially placed, and more than five were not permitted .

We learned in a beraita: If

four or five

nails remained in it,

it is permitted.

it is permitted.

And we examine it:

Now, if five

nails

are permitted, is it necessary to say that four are permitted? What is the novelty of the beraita in permitting four?

What is the novelty of the beraita in permitting four?

Rav Ḥisda said: If

four

nails

remained, it is

from a small sandal—

and five from a large sandal .

We learned in a beraita:

And Rabbi permits up to seven.

And Rabbi permits up to seven.

And this is difficult:

But wasn’t it taught

in the earlier beraita concerning a sandal that tilts:

Rabbi permits up to thirteen?

And we answer: A sandal that

tilts,

in which the nails are made to straighten it and not to reinforce it—

is different.

Now that you have arrived at this,

that there is a distinction between an ordinary sandal and a sandal that tilts,

there is no difficulty for Rabbi Yoḥanan either

with the Gemara’s earlier question: “In accordance with whom is Rabbi Yoḥanan?”—he follows neither Rabbi nor Rabbi Natan.

From now on, we can resolve it: Rabbi Yoḥanan, who said that permission was granted only for five nails, was speaking of an ordinary sandal, and

a sandal that tilts is different,

as Rabbi Natan permitted up to seven in it .

Rav Mattana said, and some say that Rav Aḥadvoi bar Mattana said in the name of Rav Mattana: The halakha is not in accordance with Rabbi Eliezer, son of Rabbi Shimon,

who decreed a prohibition against moving a nail-studded sandal, lest one come to put it on.

And we examine it:

It is obvious

that the halakha is not in accordance with him, since the Sages disagreed with him, and it is an obvious principle that

when an individual disagrees with the many, the halakha follows the many!

And we answer:

Lest you say

that here, since

the reasoning of Rabbi Eliezer, son of Rabbi Shimon, is compelling,

in this case

the halakha follows him.

It teaches us

that here too the halakha follows the many.

Rabbi Ḥiyya said: If they had not called me

the people of Eretz Yisrael by the nickname

“the Babylonian who permits prohibitions”

because Rabbi Ḥiyya was from Babylonia,

I would permit it

in the case of a sandal containing

many nails.

nails.

And how many

would Rabbi Ḥiyya permit? When he was

in Pumbedita—

they said: Twenty-four

nails were permitted.

When he was

in Sura,

on the way to Eretz Yisrael—

they said: Twenty-two

nails were permitted.

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: And your mnemonic

for the number of nails that Rabbi Ḥiyya permitted is:

By the time he came from Pumbedita to Sura—

two were missing.

On his way to Eretz Yisrael, between Pumbedita and Sura, two nails fell out of his sandal .

We learned in the Mishna:

And he may not

go out

with a

sandal

when there is no wound on his foot.

Two reasons were given for the prohibition against going out with only one shoe on Shabbat:

A.

So that his companions should not suspect that his other sandal is in his hand and that he is violating the prohibition against carrying out.

B.

Lest his companions mock him for going out with only one sandal, causing him to remove the single sandal and carry it in his hands [Rashi above, in the Mishna, page 60a].