Shabbat 61a — the Talmud in English

And we raised it:

if there is a wound on his foot—

he goes out.

It is permitted for him to go out with a single sandal.

And we were uncertain:

on which of them—

of his feet—

does he go out

with a single sandal?

Rav Huna said: On that

foot

that has a wound

he puts on his single sandal.

Evidently, he holds

Rav Huna:

a sandal—

is made for the sake of pleasure

to prevent pain from his feet; and therefore they permitted him to go out with the one 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 puts his sandal only on that one. And there is also no concern that he will come to remove this single sandal when his companions mock him, because he will refrain from doing so on account of the pain of the wound.

And Hiyya bar Rav said: On that

foot

that does not have a wound

he puts on his single sandal.

Evidently, he holds

Hiyya bar Rav: a sandal

for the sake of

pleasure is made,

and this one that has a wound—

its wound demonstrates concerning it

that he does not put a sandal on it, because the wound prevents him from putting a sandal on it. And they will not suspect him that his second sandal is being carried in his hands, and they will not mock him either.

And Rabbi Yoḥanan also held this matter of Rav Huna,

that he said: with the one that 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 Shaman bar Abba: Give me my sandal,

give me my shoe.

He gave him

Rav Shaman bar Abba gave Rabbi Yoḥanan a sandal

of

foot

right.

He said to him,

Rabbi Yoḥanan: Since one must put on the left one first, if so, when you brought me a right sandal to put on, I will again not put on a left sandal , and I will go out with a single sandal,

and you have made it

for my foot as though it has

a wound

and I put it on that foot alone.

And the Gemara understood that Rabbi Yoḥanan’s intention when he said, “You have made it a wound,” was the foot on which he puts it. And it is proven that he holds like Rav Huna, that on the foot that has a wound one puts on the single sandal.

And we reject this: There is no proof from Rabbi Yoḥanan’s words, for

perhaps

Rabbi Yoḥanan

held like Hiyya bar Rav,

that one puts the single sandal on the healthy foot,

and this is what he said

Rabbi Yoḥanan to Rav Shaman bar Abba:

You have made

the foot

of the left

like a foot that has

a wound,

so that I will not put my sandal on it.

And as for Rabbi Yoḥanan’s holding that one puts on the left one first and afterward the right one,

Rabbi Yoḥanan proceeded according to his position.

For Rabbi Yoḥanan said:

The order of putting on his shoes is

like tefillin, so are shoes: just as tefillin are on the left

of his hands,

so too shoes are on the left

of his feet; he puts that one on first, because the left is important by virtue of the placing of tefillin, which is on the left

. He raised an objection

to Rabbi Yoḥanan’s method, for 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

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,

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

whoever did this has done properly, and whoever did that has done properly .

Abaye said to him:

How do we know that he may do whichever precedence he wishes, either as the beraita or as Rabbi Yoḥanan?

Perhaps Rabbi Yoḥanan had not heard this teaching

that holds that the right should be given precedence over the left.

And if he had heard it,

that it is explicitly taught in the beraita not according to his words,

he would have retracted.

And there is another difficulty: Perhaps the truth is the opposite,

or alternatively

it is possible that in fact

he had heard it

Rabbi Yoḥanan had heard that it was taught in a beraita not according to his words, but

held that the halakha is not like that Mishna?

beraita]

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: One who fears Heaven fulfills both opinions both the opinion of the beraita and the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan. And who is he? Who was the one who did so, the one who feared Heaven?

Mar, the son of Ravina.

How did he act

to fulfill both opinions?

He put on his right

shoe first, as it is taught in the beraita,

but he did not tie

—he did not tie the shoe.

And he put on his left

shoe.

And he tied

—he tied the left shoe.

And afterward he tied

the shoe

of his right .

Rav Ashi said: I saw Rav Kahana, that he was not particular

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

The Sages taught: When he puts on

his shoes,

he puts on the right one

first

and afterward he puts on the left one.

When he removes

his shoes,

he removes the left one

first

and afterward he removes the right one.

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

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

When he washes

his body,

he washes the right

first

and afterward he washes the left.

And likewise,

when he anoints

his body,

he anoints the right

first

and afterward

he anoints

the left.

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

before all the limbs,

because it is king over all his limbs.

We learned in the Mishna:

And he may not

go out on Shabbat

with tefillin.

Rav Safra said: Do not say

that our Mishna is

according to the one who says that Shabbat is not a time for tefillin .

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

when they are placed upon him, by rabbinic decree

perhaps

he will 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 it as Rav Safra’s statement on the latter clause of the Mishna, for we learned: And if he went out with them, he is not liable for a sin-offering; and concerning this Rav Safra said: Do not say that our Mishna is according to the one who says that Shabbat is a time for tefillin, and for this reason he is not liable for a sin-offering, because this is his clothing with which he goes while fulfilling their mitzva, rather, even according to the one who says that Shabbat is not a time for tefillin, if he went out with them he is not liable for a sin-offering. What is the reason?

and come to carry them

in his hand four cubits

in the public domain.

And there are those who teach Rav Safra's statement

Because

it is 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— at a time 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 who made the amulet, because his amulets were proven effective three times, and the amulet also is an expert—this very amulet itself, because it helped three people. Rather, once the person is an expert, who wrote the amulet, because he wrote three kinds of amulets for three people and they benefited by being healed, even though the amulet is not an expert, this amulet itself, it is possible to go out with his amulets .

he is not liable for 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 tefillin,

and that this is why he is not liable for a sin-offering, because they are his clothing when he wears them during the time of their mitzva.

Rather, even according to the one who says that Shabbat is not a time for tefillin,

if he went out wearing them,

he is not liable for 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 who made the amulet, because his amulets have been proven effective three times, and the amulet itself is also an expert amulet, meaning that it has helped three people. Rather, once the person is an expert,

and not in the manner of a burden .

who wrote the amulet, because he wrote three types of amulets for three people and they helped cure them,

even though the amulet is not an expert amulet,

it is permitted to go out with his amulets .

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 .

This is also precise

from the Mishna,

as it teaches: “nor with an amulet when it is not from

the writer

who is expert.”

And it does not teach: “when it is not expert,”

the amulet itself.

Learn from it

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

The Sages taught: What is an expert amulet—

any one that healed once, twice, and three times,

even one person who was healed through it three times.

Whether a written amulet,

in which a spell is written,

or an amulet of roots,

made from plants.

Whether an ill person whose illness involves danger or an ill person whose illness does not involve danger,

it is permitted to go out with it.

And

not

specifically a person

who had a seizure

once already because of the illness [a seizure—an illness because of which a person falls to the ground],

but

even if the purpose of the amulet is

that he should not have a seizure

in the future, because this illness exists 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 "

precise location of the page column")

with a string,