Yoma 78b (עח:) — the Talmud in English

And they further raised the question before them: What is the ruling with regard to going out in a sandal of !(pamud.bmp "

precise page location")

rush

a type of reed

on Yom Kippur,

which is a hard sandal [Rashi, Yevamot 102b] and is not comfortable for walking.

Is only wearing a leather shoe prohibited, or is every shoe prohibited?

Rabbi Yitzḥak bar Naḥmani stood on his feet and said: I saw Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi go out in a sandal of rush on Yom Kippur.

And I said

and I asked

him: On a communal fast

which they decreed because of a cessation of rain, and on which wearing a shoe is also prohibited —

what

is the ruling? Is it permitted to go out in a sandal of rush?

He said to me: It is no different

a communal fast from Yom Kippur.

Rabba bar bar Ḥana said: I saw Rabbi Elazar of Neneveh go out in a sandal of rush on a communal fast, and I said to him: On Yom Kippur —

what is the ruling?

He said to me: It is no different.

Rav Yehuda would go out

he would go out on Yom Kippur

in sandals made of rush,

sandals made from a type of rush.

Abaye would go out in sandals made of palm leaves,

sandals made from palm fronds.

Rava would go out in sandals made of grass,

sandals made from grasses.

Rabba bar Rav Huna would wrap a cloth

a garment called a sudar

around his foot

on his foot,

and would go out

and go out in it on Yom Kippur.

Rami bar Ḥama raised an objection

to the permission to go out in a sandal not made of leather, from the Mishna in tractate Shabbat:

as we learned:

An amputee —

may go out

on Shabbat into the public domain

with his wooden leg,

which he makes from wood in the form of a leg in place of his own leg, hollowing out in it a place into which he inserts the stump of his leg and attaching it there to the stump; and this wooden leg is considered a shoe for him and not a burden —

the statement of Rabbi Meir.

But Rabbi Yose prohibits

going out with it on Shabbat, because the wooden leg is not considered a shoe: it is not the usual form of a shoe for everyone, but only for an amputee, and it is therefore like a burden.

And it was taught concerning it

in a beraita:

And they agree

Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yose

that it is prohibited to go out with it on Yom Kippur

even in the private domain!

Thus, even Rabbi Yose, who does not consider the wooden leg a shoe with regard to carrying on Shabbat, considers the wooden leg a shoe with regard to the affliction of Yom Kippur.

And the same applies to other shoes, including those not made of leather: they should be prohibited on Yom Kippur.

He said

he answered

Abaye: There

in the case of an amputee’s wooden leg, it is indeed prohibited by virtue of the affliction of Yom Kippur, since

there are

in the hollow of the wooden leg

cloth scraps,

small pieces of clothing with which it is comfortable for him to support his foot in the wooden leg,

and

it is prohibited to go out with it

because of the comfort.

But with other shoes that are not made of leather, walking in them is difficult and there is no comfort in them; therefore, it is permitted to go out in them on Yom Kippur.

Rava said to him: And if

the wooden leg

is not an implement,

as it is not considered a shoe because it is not made of leather, then

do cloth scraps make it an implement

so that you prohibit it because of the prohibition against wearing a shoe?

And furthermore: Is every comfort that is not a shoe —

prohibited on Yom Kippur?

But Rabba bar Rav Huna would wrap a cloth around his foot and go out.

And furthermore: From the fact that the latter clause teaches

of that same Mishna:

If it has

the wooden leg

“a receptacle”

in which

cloth scraps

are placed — it is

impure.

That is, because of the receptacle for his foot, the wooden leg is not considered one of the “simple wooden utensils,” which do not contract impurity; rather, it is a wooden utensil with a receptacle, which contracts impurity.

And the Gemara infers: From the fact that we established the latter clause as referring to a wooden leg that has a receptacle,

by inference, the first clause

of the Mishna

is not dealing with one that has

a receptacle together with

cloth scraps.

cloth pieces.

In any event, the beraita says that one may not go out with this wooden leg, which has no comfort provided by scraps, on Yom Kippur!?

Rather, Rava said: In fact, everyone

agrees that an amputee’s wooden leg

is a shoe.

And with regard to Shabbat, they disagree in this matter

Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yose, as to whether it is permitted to go out with it:

One Sage holds: We issue a decree, lest it slip off

the wooden leg,

and he come to carry it four cubits

in the public domain.

And one Sage holds: We do not issue a decree

lest it slip off.

The Sages taught: Children are permitted to observe

the afflictions

all of them, except for wearing a shoe.

And we raised a difficulty:

What is different about wearing a shoe

which they prohibited for children, because

they say,

people will say, when they see them walking in their shoes:

People

adults

put them on

the shoes of the children!

The Gemara now assumes that the adults are warned with regard to children not to cause them to violate a mitzva, and that this also applies to the mitzva of affliction on Yom Kippur. Therefore, so that people would not say that the adults put shoes on the children, the Sages ordained that the children not wear shoes even on their own.

If so, this is difficult: But

those

the other afflictions, such as washing and anointing,

people would also say: Adults put them on,

that the adults washed and anointed the children.

And we answer:

Washing and anointing —

say: They did it for him yesterday,

permissibly.

And we challenge this:

With regard to a shoe also, say: They put it on him yesterday,

that they put his shoes on him on the eve of Yom Kippur, and he slept in them.

And we answer:

With regard to a shoe, it is not possible that they put it on him yesterday.

For

indeed,

Shmuel said: One who wishes to taste the taste of death,

one who wishes to experience the taste of death —

should put on his shoes

he should put on his shoes

and sleep,

and sleep while they are locked onto his feet. Therefore, people will not say that the adults put the children’s shoes on them permissibly on the previous day; rather, they will say that they did so today, in violation.

The Gemara now retracts its assumption that adults are warned with regard to children concerning the mitzva of affliction.

But

in the beraita: “Children

are permitted

in all of them” —

it teaches this as an initial permission!

It is an absolute permission for adults to wash and anoint children, and if the adults were to ask about this, they should be instructed that they are permitted to do so ab initio. If so, the question returns: Why are children prohibited from wearing shoes?

The Gemara answers:

Rather: Those

matters such as wearing a shoe

that are not their manner of growth,

as children do not grow through them,

the Sages issued a decree with regard to them

that children observe these restrictions on Yom Kippur, because refraining from wearing a shoe does not interfere with their growth.

But

those

matters such as washing and anointing

that are their manner of growth,

as children grow through them —

the Sages did not issue a decree with regard to them

for children, so that this would not interfere with their growth.

For Abaye said: My mother told me:

this is

its manner of growth,

the manner in which

a child

is to be raised:

First, with hot water

and anoint him with

oil,

oil.

When he grows a little,

a bit — he should be fed

an egg

an egg that is dipped

in kutḥa

a type of food used for dipping.

When he grows a little

more —

break vessels,

one should give him utensils with which he can play and which he can break.

As in this incident involving Rabba, who bought

purchased

cracked earthenware vessels

cracked earthenware vessels at a cheap price

for his sons,

for his young sons,

and they broke them,

and they released their energy by breaking them.

We learned in the Mishna:

The king and the bride may wash their faces.

And the Gemara explains:

Who is the author of the Mishna?

It is Rabbi Ḥananya ben Teradyon.

As it was taught:

even

the king and the bride may not wash their faces

on Yom Kippur.

Rabbi Ḥananya ben Teradyon says in the name of Rabbi Eliezer: The king and the bride may wash their faces.

A woman who has given birth may not wear a shoe.

Rabbi Ḥananya ben Teradyon says in the name of Rabbi Eliezer: A woman who has given birth may wear a shoe.

And the Gemara explains:

What is the reason for the king?

As it is written

Isaiah 33:

“Your eyes shall behold the king in his beauty.”

What is the reason for the bride? —

So that she not become unattractive to her husband.

Rav said to Rabbi Ḥiyya: A bride —

for how long

is she considered a bride?

He said to him:

thirty days.

And

as it was taught: Ornaments are not withheld from a bride

who is a mourner, whose mother died on her wedding day,

for the entire thirty days.

It is evident that she retains the designation “bride” for the entire thirty days.

The Gemara continues to explain Rabbi Eliezer’s position:

A woman who has given birth may wear a shoe —

because of the cold.

Shmuel said: If it is because of the danger posed by scorpions —

it is permitted

for anyone also to wear a shoe on Yom Kippur.

We learned in the Mishna:

One who eats the measure of a large date.