Gemara Shabbat (Tractate Shabbat), daf (page) kuf mem alef. Today’s daf is being studied le'ilui nishmat Avraham ben Esther, refuah shelemah Dina bat Sarah. We begin today’s daf on kuf mem amud bet, one line before the Mishnah. “Ein shorin et hakarshinin” (We do not soak the vetches). The karshinin are leeks. We said in the Mishnah that you cannot soak them because you want to separate the dirt from them, and that is borer (sorting). If you soak them, the dirt floats. However, you can put them in a basket, in a kvarah, a sieve, and mimeila, by itself, the dirt falls off, so it is permitted.
The Gemara asks, “Mani matnitin delo ki hai tanna?” (Whose view does our Mishnah follow, if not this Tannaitic sage’s?) Our Mishnah is not following the following tanna (Tannaitic sage), as it was taught: Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov says, “Ein mashki'in bikvarah kol ikar” (One may not soak them in a sieve at all). You cannot use a sieve, no matter what. Even if you put them in there and it happens by itself, we do not use it bichlal, at all. So, obviously, our Mishnah is not following Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov.
The next Mishnah says, “Gorfin milifnei hapattam” (They clear out from before the feeding trough). It is permissible on Shabbat to move the dirt that is in the trough. The shor, the ox, eats from the trough, and you want to put teven (straw) and se'orim, barley, in there. But if it is dirty, the animal cannot eat, so you want to move the dirt to the side in order to fill it with barley for the animal to eat. Therefore, it says, “Gorfin milifnei hapattam”: it is permissible on Shabbat to clean out the evus, the trough. “Umesalekin litzedadin”: if there is a lot of straw in there and it is filled up, you are allowed to move it to the side, mipnei hare'i, so it does not get dirty from the re'i, the animal’s excrement. If there is excrement in the trough, you can move the straw to the side so it does not get dirty. These are the words of Rabbi Dosa, while the Chachamim (Sages) prohibit it.
We have to see what the machloket (dispute) is. What is the question? The Chachamim prohibit it? The Gemara is going to explain; that is the Gemara’s question. The Mishnah says, “Notlin milifnei behemah zo venotnin lifnei behemah zo beShabbat” (One may take from before one animal and give before another animal on Shabbat). You are allowed to take straw or barley from one animal and feed it to another. Even while one animal is eating, you can take it from that animal and give it to another. What is the chiddush (novel point)? The Gemara will explain.
The Gemara begins: “Iba'ya lehu, rabbanan areisha peligei, o asoifa peligei, o atarvaihu peligei?” (They asked: do the Sages disagree about the first case, the second case, or both?) The Chachamim are simply said to prohibit it. Is that in the first case, the second case, or both cases? The first case is that you can clean out the trough, moving away the rocks and other things in order to put the food in front of the animal. The second case is that you can move it to the side so it does not get dirty. And the Chachamim prohibit it. Is it case one, case two, or case three?
The Gemara says, “Ta shema, detanya” (Come and hear, as it was taught): “Chachamim omrim: echad zeh ve'echad zeh, lo yesalkenu litzedadin” (The Sages say: in either case, one may not move it to the sides). Both cases are prohibited. What is the reason and the logic? Rav Chisda says, “Machloket be'evus shel karka” (The dispute concerns a trough made of ground). The dispute here is about a trough made out of the ground. What is the issue? If you move the material over, the Chachamim were concerned that you might come to smooth the ground. You might see a hole in the ground when you move the material, and make ashvuyei karka, smooth the ground. Ashvuyei karka is like boneh, building, so they were concerned.
But if the trough is a vessel, not made out of ground, everyone agrees it is mutar (permitted). You can clean it out because there is no ashvuyei gumot, smoothing out holes, involved; you are not filling in any holes. Could there be someone who permits cleaning out a trough made of ground? That cannot be. “Ha ka mashveh gumot”: that is certainly a problem of smoothing out holes. By cleaning it out, you might come to smooth it and fill in the holes.
Rather, this is what was said: Rav Chisda says the dispute concerns a trough made of a vessel. Rabbi Dosa permits it; he has no concern, while the Chachamim prohibit it as a gezerah (rabbinic safeguard), a safeguard concerning a trough made of ground. But if the trough is made of ground, everyone agrees it is asur (forbidden).
Now let’s read Rashi. “Gorfin milifnei hapattam, shor shemefatmin oto.” That is, mefatem means pattam: you want to fatten it up. “Gorfin evus shelefanav beShabbat”: you clean out the trough in front of it on Shabbat, its inside, the straw and barley, so that debris does not get mixed in with them and spoil its food. The animal would not want to eat.
So now we are learning that the dispute concerns a trough that is a vessel. If it were a trough made of ground, nobody would let you clean it out. But if it is a vessel, Rabbi Dosa says it is permitted. What is the problem? There is no prohibition. Acherim say: you are right, there is no prohibition, but it is a safeguard concerning a trough made of ground.
“Venotlin milifnei behemah zo”: you are allowed to take food from before one animal while it is eating and give it to another animal. One baraita (external teaching) teaches: “Notlin milifnei behemah shepiha yafah venotnin lifnei behemah shepiha ra” (One may take from before an animal with a good mouth and give it before an animal with a bad mouth). One animal is called piha yafah, a good mouth, and another is called piha ra, a bad mouth. We’ll see what “good mouth” and “bad mouth” mean.
Another baraita teaches the exact opposite: “Notlin milifnei behemah shepiha ra venotnin lifnei behemah shepiha yafah” (One may take from before an animal with a bad mouth and give it before an animal with a good mouth). The Gemara asks: how can you teach this? Make up your mind—good to bad, or bad to good!
Abaye says both are talking about taking from a chamor (donkey) to a shor. You can give from a chamor to a shor because a chamor does not drool on the food, so it is not disgusting for the shor to eat. But you do not take from a shor and give to a chamor, because when a shor eats, it drools on the food, and it becomes disgusting; even the chamor does not want it. Those are the rules: from a donkey to an ox, yes; from an ox to a donkey, no. That means on Shabbat you cannot do that because it is muktzeh (set aside), since the animal is not going to eat it. You are doing work for no reason: you take the food, move it over there, and the animal is not going to eat it.
Now how do you explain these baraitot? “Notlin milifnei behemah shepiha yafah”: who has a good mouth? The donkey, because it does not drool. It does not have rirei, saliva, on the food. “Venotnin lifnei behemah shepiha ra”: you give it to an animal with a bad mouth. Who is that? The cow, because it has saliva. But you saw the opposite: it said you can take from an animal whose mouth is not good. No, the donkey is also called piha ra. Why? “Dela dayek be'achilah”: in that sense, a donkey eats anything. It is not makpid, particular, about what it eats; it eats anything you put in front of it. And who is called piha yafah? The cow, because it is more particular about what it eats.
So the baraitot were not arguing with each other. In terms of saliva, the donkey is called piha yafah. In terms of how particular it is, the donkey is called piha ra. But the point is that you cannot give from the ox to the donkey, while the reverse is permitted.
The Mishnah says, “Hakash she'al gabei hamitah, lo yena'an'enu beyado” (Straw that is on the bed: one may not move it with his hand). You cannot move the straw. Why? The straw on the bed is muktzeh. “Ela mena'an'o begufo”: you can move it with your body. “Ve'im hayah ma'achal behemah,” if it was animal food, or “o shehayah alav kar o sadin,” if there was a pillow or sheet on the bed, then you can move it with your hand. Obviously, the straw was put there for a mattress, for a bed, and therefore it is not muktzeh; you designated it beforehand, before Shabbat, so it is not muktzeh at all.
Rashi explains that if there was a pillow or sheet on it, this shows that it was designated for sleeping, and it has the torat keli, the status of a utensil, so it is permitted.
“Machbesh shel ba'alei batim”: what is a machbesh? A press. The press of the ba'alei batim (householders)—what did they press? The begadim, clothes. “Mattirin, aval lo chovshin”: you can undo the top board to get the clothes out, but you cannot press the clothes on Shabbat. You want to get the clothes out on Shabbat, but they are pressed. You can undo the top board to get them out, but you cannot press clothes on Shabbat. “Veshel chovsin”: if it is the professional press, the launderer’s press, “lo yiga bo”: do not touch it at all; it is entirely muktzeh. Rabbi Yehudah says, if it was already undone before Shabbat, if it was unlatched before Shabbat, “matir et kulo veshomeit”: you can unlatch the rest of it and let it fall off.
What is going on? Rashi explains: a press consists of two long, heavy boards. They put the clothes on the bottom board and lower the top board over them, pressing the garments. There are pegs and fixed posts with holes along the sides, and the pegs hold the boards down. The top and bottom boards have holes at their four corners, and they move up and down along the posts. Depending on how much he wants to press, he lowers it and inserts a peg into a hole in the post so it cannot rise. So they undo the press and take out the peg on Shabbat, and then the board comes off. That is for the needs of Shabbat: you need the garments. But pressing is for weekday use. What are you pressing them for? You are pressing them for the weekday.
As for the launderer’s press, do not touch it, because it is made to repair the clothes, and its pegs are fastened tightly. Undoing it is more like dismantling. It is more professional, so the pegs are more firmly attached, and taking them out on Shabbat resembles soteir, dismantling. The unprofessional one, the one you have at home, is not as sturdy, so the Rabbis said it is permitted. Rabbi Yehudah says no: even with the launderer’s press, if it was a little loose before Shabbat, there is no problem; you can take it apart and remove the garments.
The Gemara begins: Rav Nachman says, “Hai pugla”—what is a pugla? A radish. What is the problem? The radish is narrow on top and gets wider at the bottom. They used to store it in the ground. The question is whether you are allowed to pull it out of the ground on Shabbat. It is not rooted; you are just storing it in the ground. If it were attached to the ground, of course you could not pull it out on Shabbat. What is the problem? The radish is not muktzeh, but the afar, the dirt, is muktzeh. The problem is that when you pull out the radish, you move dirt.
It depends on how the radish is situated in the ground. The Gemara says, “Milema'alah lematah, shari”: if it is from top to bottom, it is permitted. That is, if the wide part is on top and the narrow part is on the bottom, you can pull it out of the ground without moving dirt. “Ve'i teima milematah lema'alah asir”: but if it is upside down, with the wide part on the bottom and the narrow part on top, then when you pull it out, it breaks through the ground and moves the ground, so you are moving something muktzeh.
Rashi explains: this is a tzenon (radish) that they store in the ground to preserve it. When you want to take it out, if its top is above and its bottom is below, you pull it out from its thick end first, and the narrow part follows. That is permitted because the hole is wide at the top, and pulling it out does not move the ground. But if you pull it out from the bottom, which is positioned above the ground, and its wide end is below, then you pull it from its narrow end. That is forbidden because the hole is narrow; when the wide part comes up, you move the ground. Even though you are not moving it directly, it is tiltul min hatzad, indirect contact: I am not touching the ground directly; I am touching it through the radish. So he is saying that even indirect handling is forbidden.
Rava bar Abba reported that they taught in Rav's study hall that this is not like Rav Nachman. We have a Mishnah: “Hakash she'al gabei hamitah, lo yena'ane'o beyado aval mena'ane'o begufo.” You see clearly that tiltul min hatzad is permitted, as long as you do not move the muktzeh directly. Just as you can move the straw on the bed with your body, you can move the tzenon indirectly. “Ve'im hayah ma'achal behemah o shehayah alav kar o sadin, mena'ane'o beyado”: we learn from here that tiltul min hatzad is not considered handling.
Rav Yehudah says, “Hai pilpela”—what is pilpela? Peppers. “Midak chada chada bekata desakina”: if you grind them one at a time with the handle of the knife, and you are doing it beshinui, in an unusual manner, it is permitted. Rashi explains that it is not considered the usual grinding; rather, it is done in an unusual way. The Rabbis said it is permitted. But two at a time is forbidden; that is already the normal way. Rava says: since you are doing it in an unusual way, what do I care if you do many? You can do ten at a time; what do I care? It is not a problem.
Rav Yehudah says, “Man desechei bemaya”: a person goes swimming on Shabbat. Swimming in the ocean—the ocean is a karmelit (rabbinic semi-public domain). So you go into the ocean. The problem is when you come out: there is water on your body. The drops of water are being carried. The Gemara says, “Lingav, or lingiv nafshei bereisha, vehadar lisok”: let him dry himself while he is still at the edge of the water before he comes out. Maybe he will come to carry four amot in the karmelit, and therefore we do not carry the water on his body; he has to dry off. Rashi explains that it is the water on him that he might carry four amot.
But what do you mean when he comes out? What about when he goes in? When he walks into the water, he is pushing water. The water is a karmelit, so he is pushing it four amot. Not only the water on him, but the water in the karmelit itself—when you walk in, your body pushes water. The Gemara asks, “Kocho daled amot ve'asir?” (Is moving it four cubits by his force forbidden?) It answers, “Kocho bekarmelit lo gazru”: it is not actual carrying; it is kocho, force. Through your force you are moving the water, and they did not prohibit moving something by force in a karmelit, since it is not direct carrying. So, when you push the water with your body in the karmelit, they did not prohibit it. But when you come out, the water is now on your body, so you have to dry off.
Abaye said—and some say Rav Yehudah said—“Tit she'al gabei raglo.” A person has tar on his feet. How do you take it off on Shabbat? That is the question. “Mekanecho bekarka”: rub your feet against the ground and it will come off. The Gemara says, “Ve'ein mekanecho bekotel”: do not rub your foot against the wall to get the tar off. What is the difference? Rava says, “Mai ta'ama bekotel lo? Mishum dimechzei keboneh.” Why not against the wall? Because it looks like building; you are putting tar on the wall.
The Gemara asks: “Ha binyan dechakla'ei hu?” Building with tar is something farmers do when they build their huts. This person is not building a farmer’s hut; therefore, it should be permitted. Only farmers build that way, putting tar on the wall as part of a temporary structure, while this person is putting it on an ordinary wall. So why should it be forbidden? The Gemara says: you are right. Rather, Rava says, “Mekanecho bekotel”: you can rub it against the wall. No one thinks that is building. “Ve'ein mekanecho bekarka”: why can’t you rub it against the ground? Perhaps you will come to smooth out a hole. Whenever the ground is involved, we go back to the same concern: the Rabbis were worried that you might see a hole in the ground and fill it in, which is a problem of building. So rubbing it against the ground is smoothing out holes.
It was stated: Mar brei deRavina says both are forbidden. On the wall, there is a problem of building; on the ground, a problem of smoothing out holes. Rav Pappa says both are permitted. Why? “Ein mitkaven bekach, vekayma lan keRabbi Shimon”: he does not intend to build or to smooth out holes, and we hold like Rabbi Shimon, who says that a davar she'eino mitkaven (unintended act) is permitted. Therefore, both are permitted.
According to Mar brei deRavina, who says the wall and the ground are forbidden, how should the person get the tar off his feet? He can rub it against a pole, a piece of wood lying on the ground. There is no problem of building, and no problem of smoothing out holes, because it is not on the ground. We have figured it out.
Rava says, “Lo liteiv inish apuma dilechya”: a person should not sit on the lechi (alleyway marker). You have a mavoi (alleyway), and the mavoi has a lechi in front of it to permit carrying in the alleyway. It is a heker (visual marker), so you know the border between the alleyway and the reshut harabim, the public domain. Do not sit on the lechi on Shabbat. Why shouldn’t you sit on it? “Migdandar lei chefetz,” maybe a chefetz is going to roll into the public domain, and you will come to bring it back into the alleyway. You are going to go from the public domain to the—wait, but there is a lechi there. Yes, but you are sitting on it. Since you are sitting on it, you will not recognize the visual marker. tion. When the lechi is standing by itself or lying flat, you see it. But when you are sitting on it, you may forget that there is a border between the public domain and the alleyway, and come to move something from the public domain into the alleyway.
Rava also says, “Lo litzaded inish kubba”: on Shabbat, you are not allowed to position a kubba, a barrel, on the ground to make it stand straight. Why? Again, what is the law concerning the ground? Smoothing out holes. Perhaps you will come to smooth out holes.
Rava also says, “Lo lehaddek inish udra befuma deshisha.” You have a garment, like a cloth, and you want to put it next to the spigot of the chavit (barrel), or into the hole in the barrel to plug it up. Rashi says it may be the pach, the jug. Udra (cotton stuffing), mochin (stuffing). You want to close up the jug with this. There is a general principle on Shabbat: whenever you deal with cloth and liquid, what is the problem? Sechitah, squeezing. It might get wet, and you might come to squeeze it. Or, as you plug it up, you might squeeze it in and it will get wet. Squeezing is forbidden. Perhaps it will lead to squeezing.
Rav Kahana says, “Tit she'al gabbei bigdo.” You have tar on a garment. How do you take it off? If there is a little stain or tar on your garment, “Mekaskeso mibifnim”: you can rub it from the inside, putting your fingers underneath the garment and rubbing it from there. “Ve'ein mekaskeso mibachutz”: you cannot rub it from the outside. Why? That resembles libbun, laundering, and really whitens the garment, which is a problem.
What are you talking about? Let’s look at Rashi for a moment. From the inside, it is not clearly an act of laundering. It cannot be actual laundering, because you are not putting water there, and it does not resemble laundering because that is the way you rub from the inside. So that is permitted. But rubbing it from the outside is a problem.
The Gemara challenges this: “Tit she'al gabbei man'alo”—if there is tar on the top of a person’s shoe, “megarrero begav sakkin”: you scrape it off with a knife. “Veshe'al bigdo, megarrero betziporen”: if there is tar on the garment, you scrape it off with your fingernail. “Uvilvad shelo yekaskes”: provided that you do not rub it. But you just told me you are allowed to rub it from the inside. The Gemara says, no: “Lo shelo yekaskes mibachutz.” It means that you must not rub it from the outside; from the inside, you may. The Gemara is clear: rubbing from the outside is a problem, but from the inside it is permitted.
Rav Abbahu says in the name of Rabbi Elazar in the name of Rabbi Yannai, “Megardin min'al chadash aval lo yashan.” You can scrape something off a new shoe, but not an old one. What is happening? Rashi explains that when you scrape it, some of the leather may come off. So what is the problem? Memachek, smoothing: you are smoothing the leather. That is a problem. That does not happen with a new shoe; it is tough.
The Gemara asks, “Uvamé megarrero?” How do you scrape it off a new shoe? Rabbi Abbahu says, “Begav sakkin”: with the back of a knife, not the sharp part, because the sharp part might peel it even off a new shoe. Use the dull part of the knife, and then it is permitted.
An old rabbi said to Rabbi Abbahu, “Shemadye dach mikammei ha”: erase your teaching because of the following baraita, taught by Rabbi Chiyya: “Ein megardin lo min'al chadash velo min'al yashan.” You cannot scrape it off either a new shoe or an old one. That is it. “Velo yasuch et raglo beshemen”: one may not put oil on his foot while it is inside his shoe or sandal. Why? It will soften the leather, which is a problem of me'abbed, tanning.
But he can put oil on his foot first and then put it into the shoe or sandal, because then it is clear that he is not doing it for tanning. He may apply oil to his whole body and lie on a piece of leather, and he need not be concerned. But you are putting on oil and tanning the leather! The oil goes onto his body. So, therefore, you cannot put oil on your feet while they are in a shoe at all.
Rav Chisda says that what we said—that you can put oil on your feet and then put them in the shoe—applies only when the intention is to shine the shoe. But if you are doing it to tan the shoe, it is forbidden. What is the novelty? It is obvious that tanning it is forbidden. Also, are we allowing it to shine the shoe? We are going to see that the Rabbis make a safeguard about that too: if we allow you to do it to shine the shoe, you might come to tan it. So what are you telling me? If you are doing it for either of those reasons, it should be forbidden.
Rather, this is what Rav Chisda said: the only time we allow you to put oil on your feet is when the amount is the amount normally used to shine the shoe. But doing it to tan the shoe is forbidden. That means you cannot do it for any purpose—not to shine it and not to tan it. The question is how much oil you are allowed to put on your foot. You are allowed the amount normally used to shine the shoe, but if you put on the amount that would normally be enough to tan the shoe, that is forbidden. But you cannot intend either purpose. Why are you putting oil on your foot? Just put oil on your foot. They are telling you not to put on more than the amount normally used to shine it, because otherwise they are making a safeguard.
Is it the same answer for the leather mat? Maybe. Maybe he is not doing it to shine it and he is not doing it to tan it. Whatever we say about the shoe, we say about the leather mat too. The same intention applies: not to shine it and not to tan it, but just to lie down. Why is he putting oil on his body? Just because he wants to put oil on his body. Oil is permitted on Shabbat. Olive oil is permitted. If you have chapped lips, you can put on olive oil. That is memare'ach, smoothing, because it is already soft.
Another teaching: “Lo yetzei katan bemin'al gadol.” A child cannot wear an adult shoe on Shabbat. It is going to fall off his foot. You cannot wear big shoes on Shabbat if they do not fit you. Why? It might fall off on Shabbat. So let it fall off. You might come to carry it. Or put it back on.
“Aval yotzei hu bechaluk gadol”: but he can wear a garment that is bigger than his size. It is not going to fall off; it is just bigger. And even if it falls off, he is not walking around in the marketplace without a shirt. With a shoe, yes, people walk outside without shoes.
“Velo tetzei ishah bemin'al merupat”: a woman cannot go out on Shabbat in a ripped shoe. It is embarrassing; people will laugh at her—“Ha ha, look at that ugly shoe”—and she will take it off. “Velo tachlotz bo”: she should not use it for chalitzah (release ceremony), the process of yibum (levirate marriage). Initially, do not use that shoe, but after the fact, the chalitzah is valid. What is the problem with a ripped shoe? It may not be a shoe; it has to be a na'al (shoe). When it is ripped, it may not really be called a proper shoe. But it is not completely ripped, so after the fact it is valid.
“Ve'ein yotzin bemin'al chadash”: one may not go out with new shoes on Shabbat. What kind of shoe did they mean? A woman’s shoe. What is the problem? She has not worn the new shoe yet, so she is not sure it fits her correctly. We are worried that on Shabbat she might take it off when she sees it does not fit exactly right. They are particular about that, so she might take it off. Is that the halachah, that women cannot wear new shoes on Shabbat? Let’s look at the Mishnah Berurah.
Tana devei Kappara says, “Lo shanu ela shelo yatza bah sha'ah achat mibe'od yom”: that applies only if she did not wear it for one hour before Shabbat. “Aval yatza bo me'erev Shabbat mutar”: if she wore it even for an hour before Shabbat, she knows how it fits, so it is permitted.
How about all the women who say, “I tried it on in the store”? Does anybody buy shoes without trying them on first? Maybe they do. Or they buy them online, enter their size, and the shoes are delivered. They did not try them on in the store; there is no store. They get home, and Shabbat comes. They open the box and put them on. Is that forbidden? Let’s see what the Shulchan Aruch says. Maran (our master) says that—read it. Which section are you up to? Shin Gimmel? That is all the laws for women, but they do not bring the halachah about a new shoe for a woman there.
“Well, what does it say in Shin Gimmel? Read something in Shin Gimmel.” “It is not going to fit her well, and she will take it off and carry it.” Men are not particular. A man is not particular; they are not so vain. A woman’s shoe does not fit right, and she takes it off. A man thinks, “Big deal.” Women are more particular about this. What does the Shulchan Aruch say? We’ll go further. When you find it, tell us what it says.
One baraita teaches: “Shomtin min'al me'al gabei imus.” Ah, the imus—do you know what the imus is? It is what shoemakers have: the model they put the shoe on, like a shoe form. You put the shoe on it, work on it, and take it off so it keeps its shape. The teaching says you may take the shoe off the imus.
What does it say? “Velo bemin'al chadash shemma lo yavo lemadatah ela im ken nistah lalechet bo mibe'od yom shehu lemadatah, aval ish mutar she'ein makpid kol kach.” You may not wear a new shoe because it might not fit her, unless she tried walking in it before the day; a man, however, may, because he is not so particular. What does the Mishnah Berurah say? Is it under “ish” or “ishah,” or “ish”? Whatever—read everything. Unless she tried it, yes. Unless she tried it before the day, even for only one hour. But a man may, because he is not so particular. You hear that? She had to try it on.
What if she gets it from the internet? Today they get shoes from Zappos; they order them, the box comes, and they have not tried them on. They are delivered. Then Shabbat comes. She gets the new shoes, goes to the celebration, and puts them on. She has never tried them on. “I tried them on around the house.” No, sir. She had to try them on before Shabbat, not on Shabbat. It is too late to start trying them on Shabbat if she has to go outside wearing them. That is an interesting halachah, for sure.
The Gemara does not raise that concern. One baraita says, “Shomtin min'al me'al gabei imus”: you may take a shoe off the imus. Another says, “Ein shomtin”: you may not take it off. There is no contradiction: one follows Rabbi Eliezer, the other the Rabbis. We learned: “Min'al she'al gabei imus, Rabbi Eliezer metaher.” Rabbi Eliezer says the shoe on the imus is not susceptible to ritual impurity yet. Why? It is not a utensil yet. Since it is still on the imus and the shoemaker is still working on it, it is not considered gmar keli (completion of the utensil) yet. Therefore, it is not susceptible to ritual impurity, and if it is not susceptible to ritual impurity, it is not considered a shoe yet. If it is not considered a shoe, it is muktzeh. The Chachamim say it is susceptible to ritual impurity; it is a utensil. So it is not muktzeh. It all depends on whether a shoe on the imus is still considered a utensil.
This works according to the one who says that a keli shemelachto le'isur (utensil designated for prohibited use) may be moved whether you need the item for a permitted function, letzorech gufo, or you need its place, letzorech mekomo. I understand why the Chachamim allow me to take the shoe off the imus. The shoe is a utensil, the imus is a utensil whose function is prohibited, and I am allowed to move it because I need its place. I need the place where the shoe is. I will soon learn why that is considered needing its place: I need the place where the imus is, because I have to move the imus away to get the shoe. Therefore, it is a utensil whose function is prohibited, moved because I need its place. No problem.
But according to Abaye, who says that moving it to use its place is forbidden, how are you moving the imus? You can move the shoe, but how are you moving the shoe? You have to move the imus, and you cannot move the imus because you need its place. What can we say?
The Gemara says that we are dealing here with a loose fit. You do not have to move the imus; the shoe is not tight on it. You can pull it off without moving the imus. A teaching says: Rabbi Yehudah says, “Im hayah rafui, mutar”: if it was loose, it is permitted. The implication is that if it was not loose, it is not permitted.
This works according to Abaye, who says that an object whose function is prohibited may be moved for its own use, but not to use its place. I understand why it has to be loose. But according to Rava, who says it may be moved whether you need it for its own use or need its place, why does it need to be loose? Even if it is not loose, it should be permitted.
The Gemara says: that teaching of Rabbi Yehudah is going according to Rabbi Eliezer, who says that a shoe on the imus is not considered a utensil and is therefore muktzeh, because it is not yet susceptible to ritual impurity. A teaching says Rabbi Yehudah said in the name of Rabbi Eliezer, “Im hayah rafui, mutar.” According to him, if it was loose, it is permitted. Why should it be permitted if it is muktzeh? We have to read Rashi.
Go through all the Rashis here; you have to read a lot of Rashis. Look at imus: Rashi says forma, a form. Rabbi Eliezer says it is not susceptible to ritual impurity, which shows it is not a utensil. Regarding Shabbat, it is also forbidden to move it. This works according to Rava, who says in the chapter “Kol HaKelim” that an object whose function is prohibited may be moved whether one needs to use the utensil itself or needs its place. The shoe is fine to move, because it is a utensil. The imus is also a utensil whose function is prohibited. Even though the imus is used for a prohibited function, we move it because we need its place—that is, the shoe that is on it.
We can say that the teaching permitting taking the shoe off follows the Rabbis, who say the shoe is not muktzeh. Since it is a utensil and the imus is also a utensil whose function is prohibited, we can move the imus because we need its place. That means we need the shoe that is on it. Beautiful. We have a way out.
But according to Abaye, even if the shoe on the imus is a utensil according to the Rabbis, how are you taking it off? If the imus is an object whose function is prohibited, the person taking the shoe off does not need the imus itself. How can he move it? The Gemara answers: it is a loose fit, so the shoe sits loosely and he does not need to move the imus. If it is not loose, it is not permitted, because the imus may not be moved to use its place.
That teaching of Rabbi Yehudah is in the name of Rabbi Eliezer. Rabbi Yehudah is making a distinction between a loose shoe and one that is not loose according to Rabbi Eliezer, who says a shoe on the imus is not a completed utensil. Until you take it off, it still needs to be removed from the imus; regarding Shabbat, it is forbidden to move because it is not a utensil. It is obvious that if it is loose, it does not need to be removed; it is permitted to move it. The novelty is that when it is loose, it is as if it is already off. Therefore, even according to Rabbi Eliezer, it is permitted. According to the Rabbis, even if it is not loose, it is permitted. The reason it is forbidden when it is not loose according to Rabbi Yehudah is not because of the imus, but because of the shoe itself.
Let’s read it inside again. “Hacha bemai askinan, birfui”—we are dealing with a loose fit. Rabbi Yehudah says, “Im hayah rafui.” We initially thought that this applied according to the Rabbis: the shoe itself is not a problem, but the imus is. So we have to say it is loose, meaning you do not have to move the imus to use its place, according to those opinions that say using its place is forbidden.
The Gemara says: this works according to the one who says that an object whose function is prohibited may be moved for its own use but not to use its place. But according to the one who says it may be moved whether for its own use or to use its place, why does it have to be loose? The Gemara answers: the requirement that it be loose is according to the other opinion, and even according to Rabbi Eliezer. Rabbi Eliezer says that the shoe is muktzeh because it is on the imus. If it is loose, you can take the shoe off, because it is no longer considered muktzeh. Since it is loose, it is as if it has already come off. That is the teaching in the name of Rabbi Eliezer: if it is loose, it is permitted.
Do we have anything else to see here? We had two baraitot above, correct? One said you may not take it off, and one said you may. Originally we said one follows Rabbi Eliezer and one follows the Rabbis. Now that we have this distinction, we could give another answer: one concerns a loose shoe and one a shoe that is not loose, even according to one opinion. The Gemara assumed they were speaking about the same case. If it is loose, even according to Rabbi Eliezer it is permitted, because the shoe is considered already off. If it is not loose, then you can take it off only according to the Rabbis, and even according to the Rabbis only according to the opinion that says you may move an object to use its place. According to the opinion that says using its place is forbidden, the Rabbis would also allow you to take it off only if it is loose. So you have to work through the variables here: whether it is loose or tight, and whether you may move it to use its place.
Baruch Hashem le'olam amen ve'amen. Hadran alach Tolin.