Shabbat 61a (סא.) — the Talmud in English

And we raised this:

if he has a wound on his foot—

he goes out.

For he is permitted to go out wearing a single sandal.

And we are uncertain:

on which of them

his feet

does he go out

wearing a single sandal?

Rav Huna said: On that

foot

that has a wound

he puts on his single sandal.

Apparently, Rav Huna holds:

Rav Huna holds that a

sandal

is made for the sake of alleviating distress,

to prevent distress to his feet. Therefore, they permitted him to go out wearing it on the foot that has a wound, so that his companions would not suspect him of carrying the second sandal in his hand, since they see that one of his feet has a wound and therefore he wears his sandal only on that foot. Nor is there concern that he will remove this single sandal when his companions mock him, because the distress of the wound will prevent him from doing so.

And Ḥiyya bar Rav said: On that

foot

that does not have a wound

he puts on his single sandal.

Apparently, Ḥiyya bar Rav holds:

Ḥiyya bar Rav holds that a sandal

is made for the sake of

pleasure,

and this one that has a wound—

its wound demonstrates its status,

as he does not put a sandal on it, since the wound prevents him from putting a sandal on it. They will not suspect him of carrying his second sandal in his hand, nor will they mock him.

And Rabbi Yoḥanan also held in accordance with this opinion of Rav Huna,

who said that when one foot has a wound, they permitted him to put on his single sandal.

And we learned this from an incident

in which Rabbi Yoḥanan said to Rav Shemen bar Abba: Give me my sandal,

give me my shoe.

He gave him

Rav Shemen bar Abba gave Rabbi Yoḥanan a sandal for

the

foot of the

right.

Rabbi Yoḥanan said to him:

Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Since one must put on the left one first, if you have brought me a right sandal to put on, I will not put on a left sandal afterward , and I will go out wearing a single sandal,

and you have made

my foot as though it had a

wound,

so that I will put one on that foot alone.

The Gemara understood Rabbi Yoḥanan’s statement, “You have made it a wound,” to refer to the foot on which he would put the sandal. It is therefore evident that he holds in accordance with Rav Huna, that when one foot has a wound, one puts the single sandal on it.

And we reject this: There is no proof from Rabbi Yoḥanan’s statement, because

perhaps

Rabbi Yoḥanan

held in accordance with Ḥiyya bar Rav,

that one puts the single sandal on the healthy foot.

And this is what

Rabbi Yoḥanan said to Rav Shemen bar Abba:

You have made

the

left foot

like a foot that has a

wound,

so that I will not put my sandal on it.

And regarding the fact that Rabbi Yoḥanan holds that one puts on the left one first and afterward the right one,

Rabbi Yoḥanan followed his own reasoning.

For Rabbi Yoḥanan said:

The order for putting on one’s shoes is

like that of phylacteries, so too with shoes: Just as phylacteries are put on the left

hand,

so too shoes are put on the left

foot first. This is because the left is accorded importance by virtue of the donning of phylacteries, which is on the left .

The Gemara raises an objection to Rabbi Yoḥanan’s opinion, as we learned in a beraita:

When

he puts on

his shoes, he

puts on

the

right one

first,

and afterward he puts on

the

one of the

foot of

the left.

Rav Yosef said: Now that it has been taught thus,

to give precedence to putting on the right before the left,

and Rabbi Yoḥanan said thus,

to the contrary, to give precedence to putting on the left before the right, the halakha is:

Whoever acted this way has acted correctly, and whoever acted that way has acted correctly .

Abaye said to him:

From where do we know that he may give precedence in whichever manner he wishes, either in accordance with the beraita or in accordance with Rabbi Yoḥanan?

Perhaps Rabbi Yoḥanan had not heard this beraita,

which maintains that the right must precede the left.

And if he had heard it,

that it is explicitly stated in the beraita contrary to his opinion,

he would have retracted his position.

And there is another way to raise an objection: Perhaps the truth is the opposite;

or alternatively,

it is possible that in fact

he had heard

that Rabbi Yoḥanan had heard that a beraita was taught contrary to his opinion, but

he held that the halakha does not follow that teaching? [the beraita]

beraita]

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: One who is God-fearing fulfills both opinions,

both the opinion of the beraita and the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan.

And who was he?

Who was the God-fearing person who acted this way?

Mar, the son of Ravina.

How did he act

to fulfill both opinions?

He finished his right

shoe first, as taught in the beraita,

but did not tie it,

he did not tie the shoe.

And he finished his left

shoe,

and tied it,

he tied the left shoe.

And afterward he tied

the shoe of

his right .

his shoes,

Rav Ashi said: I saw Rav Kahana, who was not particular;

sometimes he put on the left one first, and sometimes he put on the right one first .

The Sages taught: When he puts on

his shoes, he

puts on the right one

first

and afterward puts on the left one.

When he removes

his shoes, he

removes the left one

first

and afterward removes the right one.

And this is the honor of the right: that it is removed last.

And similarly, among the laws concerning honoring the right side:

When he washes

his body, he

washes the right

first

and afterward washes the left.

And similarly,

when he anoints

his body, he

anoints the right

first

and afterward

anoints

the left.

And one who wishes to anoint his entire body anoints his head first,

before all the other limbs,

because it is king over all his limbs.

We learned in the Mishna:

And he may not

go out on Shabbat

with phylacteries.

Rav Safra said: Do not say

that our Mishna is

in accordance with the one who says that Shabbat is not a time for phylacteries .

Rather, even according to the one who says that Shabbat is a time for phylacteries, he may not go out

with them placed on him, as this is a decree

lest

he need to remove them from his head, for example, if he needs to relieve himself ,

and he will come to carry them

when they are in his hand four cubits

in the public domain.

And there are those who teach Rav Safra's statement

And there are those who teach

Rav Safra’s statement

with regard to the latter clause

of the Mishna, as we learned:

And if he went out

with them,

he is not liable to bring a sin-offering.

And concerning this

Rav Safra said: Do not say

that our Mishna is

in accordance with the one who says that Shabbat is a time for phylacteries,

and that for this reason he is not liable to bring a sin-offering, because they are his clothing, with which he goes while performing the mitzva,

but even according to the one who says that Shabbat is not a time for phylacteries,

if he went out with them,

he is not liable to bring a sin-offering.

What is the reason?

Because

they are made in the manner of clothing

and not in the manner of a burden .

We learned in the Mishna:

And he may not

go out

with an amulet—

when it is not from an expert.

Rav Pappa said: Do not say

that the expert mentioned in our Mishna means

until the person is an expert,

the one who made the amulet, because his amulets have been proven effective three times,

and the amulet

also

is an expert

itself, meaning that this particular amulet has helped three people.

Rather, once the person is an expert,

who wrote the amulet, because he wrote three types of amulets for three people and they were effective in healing them,

even though the amulet is not an expert

itself, one may go out with his amulets .

Precisely so

from the Mishna,

as it teaches: And not with an

expert

writer.

And it does not teach: “when it itself is not expert.”

the amulet itself.

Infer from it

that it is sufficient for the person who made the amulet to be an expert.

The Sages taught: What is an expert amulet?

Any amulet that healed once, twice, and three times,

even if it was one person who was healed through it three times.

One is a written amulet,

in which a spell is written,

and one is an amulet of roots,

made from plants.

Whether it is a sick person whose life is in danger or a sick person whose life is not in danger,

it is permitted to go out with it.

And

not

specifically a person

who suffered a seizure

once already because of the illness [seizure: an illness that causes a person to fall to the ground because of it],

but

even if the purpose of the amulet is

that he should not suffer a seizure

in the future, because this illness runs in his family and he is concerned for himself—it is permitted to go out with it.

And he ties and unties

the amulet

even in the public domain, provided that he does not tie it !(pamud.bmp "

exact location of the column")

with a chain,