Shabbat 66a — 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 should 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 head of the stump in which one can place

rags,

soft garments upon which he places the head of his shin—

it is impure,

it contracts impurity through contact. But if it has no receptacle for rags, it does not contract impurity through contact, because plain wooden vessels that have no receptacle do not contract impurity.

His supports:

an amputee in both legs who walks on his shins and makes a leather covering for his feet—if the amputee is a zav, then the supports too

are impure with midras impurity, and one goes out with them on Shabbat,

because this is his ornament,

and one enters the Temple courtyard with them,

although one does not enter the Temple Mount wearing a shoe [because it is written, “Remove your shoe from upon your foot”], and with these supports he may enter because they are not a shoe.

An amputee whose shin tendons have dried and shriveled, to the extent that he cannot even walk on them, and for whom they make a low chair to which he is tied; and when he detaches himself from it, he leans on small supports in his hands, lifts his body from the ground, pushes himself forward, and then rests again on his rear. If the amputee is a zav, then

his chair and supports

of his—

are impure with midras impurity.

And one does not go out with them on Shabbat,

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

And one does not enter the Temple courtyard with them

as with a shoe.

With stilts

like a donkey that clowns make, which a person carries on his shoulders and appears to be riding upon—

they are pure,

from contracting impurity, since they are neither a vessel used by a person nor an ornament.

And one does not go out with them on Shabbat,

because this is not the manner of a garment.

Gemara:

Rava said to Rav Nahman: How do we teach

in the Mishna? Do we teach: an amputee goes out with his stump, the words of Rabbi Meir, and Rabbi Yosei prohibits?

Or perhaps we teach the reverse: an amputee does not go out with his stump, the words of Rabbi Meir, and Rabbi Yosei permits.

He said to him,

Rav Nahman to Rava:

I do not know

how we teach in our Mishna!

He said to him:

What is the law,

does he go out on Shabbat with a stump?

He said to him:

I do not know!

It was stated; Shmuel said:

we teach in our Mishna:

an amputee does not

go out with his stump, the words of Rabbi Meir, and Rabbi Yosei permits.

And so said Rav Huna:

we teach:

an amputee does not

go out.

Rav Yosef said: Since Shmuel said that an amputee does not

go out,

and Rav Huna said

also

that an amputee does not

go out,

we too should teach: an amputee does not go out

with his stump, the words of Rabbi Meir.

Rava bar Shirah raised an objection to this:

Did

they not hear

from Shmuel and Rav Huna

that which Rav Hanan bar Rava taught to Hiyya bar Rav before Rav in the small chamber of the

beit-midrash, teaching him this Mishna as follows:

an amputee does not go out with his stump, the words of Rabbi Meir, and Rabbi Yosei permits?

And when Rav heard that he had taught it in this way,

Rav indicated to him

and showed him with his fingers:

reverse it,

we teach that Rabbi Meir permits and Rabbi Yosei prohibits.

Rav Nahman bar Yitzhak said: And a sign

that Rabbi Yosei is the one who prohibits is that in these words Rabbi Yo

s

ei prohi

s

there are the letters

samekh samekh

one beside the other.

And even Shmuel,

who said that we teach that Rabbi Meir prohibits,

retracted his position

and conceded to Rav.

For we learned

in tractate Yevamot:

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

that of the yavam, or if she performed halitza

with a wooden shoe, or

if she performed halitza with a shoe

of the left

foot that he had put

on

the

right

foot [for 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.

For we learned: An amputee goes out with his stump, the words of Rabbi Meir,

because it is a shoe.

And Rabbi Yosei prohibits.

And we learn from here that Shmuel retracted his position and taught our Mishna like Rav.

And Rav Huna too retracted his position

and taught our Mishna like Rav: Rabbi Meir permits and Rabbi Yosei prohibits.

For it was taught

in a beraita:

A shoe of plasterers

made of wood, which plaster sellers wear while occupied with plaster because the plaster burns the skin—

is impure with midras impurity

when a zav wears it.

And a woman performs halitza with it

because it has the status of a shoe.

And one goes out with it on Shabbat

because it has the status of a shoe,

the words of Rabbi Akiva, but the Sages did not agree with him

concerning this.

And we raise a contradiction between two beraitot:

A

nd

it was taught

in another beraita:

The Sages agreed with him

in the opinion of Rabbi Akiva!?

Rav Huna said:

The contradiction between the beraitot is not difficult.

Who are the “Sages agreed with him”

—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 “Sages did not agree with him”

—this refers to

Rabbi Yosei

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

And we learn from his words that Rav Huna retracted his position and taught it like Rav.

Rav Yosef said:

The shoe of plasterers is made of straw, and the tannaim disputed whether straw has the status of wood or not. And

who are “they did not agree”

the Sages?

Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri.

For we learned: A basket of straw and a reed tube—Rabbi Akiva declares them impure,

because he holds that straw has the status of wood.

And Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri declares them pure,

and holds that straw does not become impure like wood.

The master said:

That which was taught:

A shoe of plasterers is impure with midras impurity—

why?

Is it not made for walking,

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

Rav Aha bar Rav Ulai said:

Its law is that of a shoe and it contracts midras impurity,

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

We learned in the Mishna:

And if it has,

on the head 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 through contact,

but it is not impure with midras impurity.

For it does not become an av ha-tumah through the midras of a zav, because it is not made for the midras of a zav but for an ornament, and midras impurity applies only to a vessel specifically designated for this, and not to another vessel upon which the zav stepped.

Rava said:

A stump that has a receptacle is

also impure with midras impurity,

since sometimes the zav relies upon the stump.

Rava said: From where do I say this,

that if he sometimes relies upon it, it can contract midras impurity?

For we learned: A child’s wagon

made for play, and sometimes they seat him in it to play with him—

is impure with midras impurity,

because sometimes the child sits upon it; and the same is true of a stump that has a receptacle: sometimes he relies upon it.

And Abaye said:

One cannot prove from there, because

there

it is impure with midras impurity because

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

Abaye said: From where do I say this,

that the stump does not contract midras impurity because it is not considered specifically designated for this?

For it was taught

in a beraita:

A stick of the elderly,

who walk on their feet and sometimes rely upon it—

is entirely pure,

it does not contract midras impurity because it is not made for support, and it does not contract the other impurities, since wooden vessels that have no receptacle do not contract impurity through a tent or through contact.

And Abaye derived the law of the amputee’s stump from the stick of the elderly.