Shabbat 66a (סו.) — the Talmud in English

And Rabbi Yosei prohibits,

since it is not supported by the stump but by the crutches, and he wears it only so that he will not appear to be missing a leg, therefore it is neither a garment nor an ornament, but a burden.

And if it has a receptacle

at the top of the stump in which one can place

rags,

soft pieces of cloth on which he can rest the head of his leg—

it is impure,

it is susceptible to ritual impurity through contact. But if it has no receptacle for rags, it is not susceptible to ritual impurity through contact, because plain wooden vessels that have no receptacle do not become impure.

His supports:

an amputee whose two legs are missing, who walks on his shins and makes leather coverings for his feet—if the amputee is a zav, then his supports as well

are impure with the impurity of a seat, and one may go out with them on Shabbat,

because this is his ornament,

and one may enter the Temple courtyard with them,

although one may not enter the Temple Mount wearing shoes [because it is written, “Remove your shoes from upon your feet”]; with these supports he may enter, since they are not shoes.

An amputee whose shin tendons have dried and contracted, to the extent that he cannot even walk on them, is provided with a low chair to which he is strapped. When he becomes detached from it, he leans on small supports in his hands, lifts his body from the ground, pushes himself forward, and then comes to rest again on his back. If the amputee is a zav, then

his chair and supports

are his,

impure with the impurity of a seat.

But one may not go out with them on Shabbat,

because, since these supports hang and he does not place them on the ground, there was concern that they might fall and he would come to carry them four cubits in the public domain.

And one may not enter the Temple courtyard with them,

because they have the status of shoes.

Anaktamin

like a donkey made by entertainers, which a person carries on his shoulders and appears to be riding—

are pure

and do not become impure, since they are neither an implement used by a person nor an ornament.

And one may not go out with them on Shabbat,

since this is not the manner of wearing a garment.

Gemara:

Rava said to Rav Naḥman: How do we learn it

in the Mishna? Do we learn: “An amputee may go out with his stump; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir, and Rabbi Yosei prohibits”?

Or perhaps we learn the opposite: “An amputee may not go out with his stump; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir, and Rabbi Yosei permits”?

He said to him,

Rav Naḥman to Rava:

I do not know

how we learn it in our Mishna!

He said to him:

What is the halakha,

may one go out with the stump on Shabbat?

He said to him:

I do not know!

It was stated; Shmuel said:

We learn in the Mishna:

An amputee may not

go out with his stump; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir, and Rabbi Yosei permits.

And so Rav Huna said:

We learn:

An amputee may not

go out.

Rav Yosef said: Since Shmuel said, “An amputee may not

go out,”

and Rav Huna said

as well

“An amputee may not

go out,”

we too should learn: “An amputee may not go out”

with his stump; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir.

Rava bar Shirah challenged this:

Did

they not hear

from Shmuel and Rav Huna

what Rav Hanan bar Rava taught to Hiyya bar Rav before Rav, in the small chamber of the beit-midrash:

He taught him this Mishna, as follows:

“An amputee may not go out with his stump; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir, and Rabbi Yosei permits.”

And when Rav heard that this was what he had taught him,

Rav gestured to him,

showing him with his fingers,

“Reverse it,”

we learn that Rabbi Meir permits and Rabbi Yosei prohibits.

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: And there is a mnemonic

that Rabbi Yosei is the one who prohibits: In the words Rabbi Yo

s

ei o

s

er, there are the letters

samekh samekh

next to one another.

And Shmuel too,

who had said that we learn that Rabbi Meir prohibits,

retracted his position

and conceded to Rav.

As we learn

in tractate Yevamot:

If she performed halitza with a shoe that was not his,

belonging to the yavam, or if she performed halitza

with a wooden shoe, or

performed halitza with a shoe

of the left foot

that he wore

on

the

right

[since halitza is performed with the right foot]—

her halitza is valid.

And we say: Who is the tanna

who holds that a wooden shoe is considered a shoe?

Shmuel said: It is Rabbi Meir.

As we learn: “An amputee may go out with his stump; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir,”

because it is a shoe.

And Rabbi Yosei prohibits.

We learn from here that Shmuel retracted his position and taught our Mishna in accordance with Rav.

And Rav Huna too retracted his position

and taught our Mishna in accordance with Rav: Rabbi Meir permits and Rabbi Yosei prohibits.

As it is taught

in a beraita:

A plasterer’s shoe

made of wood, and lime sellers wear it while working with lime because the lime burns the skin—

is impure with the impurity of a seat

when a zav wears it.

And a woman performs halitza with it,

because it has the status of a shoe.

And one may go out with it on Shabbat

because it has the status of a shoe,

these are the words of Rabbi Akiva, but the Sages did not concede to him

.

And we raise a contradiction between two beraitot:

A

nd

it is taught

in another beraita:

“They conceded to him”

the Sages conceded to Rabbi Akiva!?

Rav Huna said:

The contradiction between the beraitot is not difficult.

Who are the “they conceded to him”

the Sages? This refers to

Rabbi Meir

in our Mishna, who permits going out with a wooden shoe on Shabbat because he holds that it has the status of a shoe.

And who are the “they did not concede to him”

the Sages? This refers to

Rabbi Yosei

in our Mishna, who prohibits going out with it on Shabbat.

We learn from his words that Rav Huna retracted his position and taught the Mishna in accordance with Rav.

Rav Yosef said:

The plasterer’s shoe is made of straw, and the tannaim dispute whether straw has the status of wood.

And who are “they did not concede to him,”

the Sages?

Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri.

As we learn: “A basket made of straw and a reed tube, Rabbi Akiva declares impure,”

because he holds that straw has the status of wood.

And Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri declares pure,

holding that straw does not become impure like wood.

The Master said:

That which is taught:

“A plasterer’s shoe is impure with the impurity of a seat”—

why?

Is it not made for walking,

but only to protect their feet while they work with lime?

Rav Aḥa bar Rav Ulla said:

It has the status of a shoe and is impure with the impurity of a seat,

because the plasterer walks in it until he reaches his home.

We learn in the Mishna:

“And if it has”,

on the top of the stump,

a receptacle for rags—

it is impure.

Abaye said: “It is impure”

that we learned in the Mishna refers only to

corpse impurity

through tent impurity and contact,

but it is not impure with the impurity of a seat.

It does not become an av ha-tumah through the pressure of a zav, because it is not made for the pressure of a zav but as an ornament; and the impurity of a seat applies only to an implement designated for that purpose, not to another implement upon which the zav exerted pressure.

Rava said:

A stump that has a receptacle is

also impure with the impurity of a seat,

since the zav sometimes relies on the stump.

Rava said: From where do I say this

that if he sometimes relies on it, it can become impure with the impurity of a seat?

As we learn: “A child’s wagon”

made for play, and sometimes they place the child inside it to play with him—

is impure with the impurity of a seat,

because sometimes the child sits on it. The same applies to a stump with a receptacle: sometimes he relies on it.

And Abaye said:

There is no proof from there, because

there,

it is impure with the impurity of a seat because

he relies on it; here, he does not rely on it.

Abaye said: From where do I say this

that the stump does not become impure with the impurity of a seat because it is not considered designated for that purpose?

As it is taught

in a beraita:

An old man’s walking stick,

used by those who walk on their feet and sometimes lean on it—

is pure from everything,

it does not become impure with the impurity of a seat, because it is not made for leaning; and it does not become impure with the other forms of impurity, since wooden vessels that have no receptacle do not become impure through a tent or through contact.

Abaye derived the law of an amputee’s stump from that of an old man’s walking stick.