## Shabbat Daf 112a

###### Shabbat 112a:1
[Shabbat 112a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shabbat/r/112a:1)

קִיטְרָא דְּקָטְרִי בִּזְמָמָא וְקִיטְרָא דְּקָטְרִי בְּאִיסְטָרִידָא, חִיּוּבָא הוּא דְּלֵיכָּא, הָא אִיסּוּרָא — אִיכָּא. וְיֵשׁ שֶׁמּוּתָּרִין לְכַתְּחִילָּה, וּמַאי נִיהוּ — קוֹשֶׁרֶת מִפְתְּחֵי חֲלוּקָהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**A knot** with which one **ties** a strap **to the** camel’s **nose ring and a knot** with which one **ties** a rope **to the ring fixed to the bow of a ship,** with regard to **liability** to bring a sin-offering, there is **none; however, there is a** rabbinic **prohibition. And there are** knots **that are permitted** to **be** tied on Shabbat ***ab initio*. And which are these?** The knot that a woman uses to **tie the opening of her robe.**


###### Shabbat 112a:2
[Shabbat 112a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shabbat/r/112a:2)

מִפְתַּח חֲלוּקָהּ. פְּשִׁיטָא! לָא צְרִיכָא, דְּאִית לֵיהּ תְּרֵי דַשֵּׁי. מַהוּ דְתֵימָא: חֲדָא מִינַּיְיהוּ בַּטּוֹלֵי מְבַטֵּיל [לַהּ], קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
We learned in the mishna: A woman may tie **the opening of her robe** on Shabbat. The Gemara states: This is **obvious,** as the knot is meant to be untied and is therefore not permanent. The Gemara explains: **It is only necessary** to state this *halakha* in a case **where the robe has two laces** with which to tie the opening. **Lest you say** that **one of them** may **become void** because the woman can remove the garment even with one string, leaving the one not untied a permanent knot, **it** therefore **teaches us** that neither knot is considered permanent.


###### Shabbat 112a:3
[Shabbat 112a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shabbat/r/112a:3)

וְחוּטֵי סְבָכָה. פְּשִׁיטָא! לָא צְרִיכָא, דִּרְוִיחָא לַהּ. מַהוּ דְתֵימָא: מִישְׁלָף שָׁלְפָא לַהּ, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן דְּאִשָּׁה חָסָה עַל שְׂעָרָהּ וּמִישְׁרָא שָׁרְיָא לַהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
We learned in the mishna: **And** a woman may tie the **strings of her hairnet** on Shabbat. The Gemara states: This is **obvious.** The Gemara clarifies the matter: **It was only necessary** to state this *halakha* in a case **where** the hairnet is tied **loosely on her** head. **Lest you say** that **she** sometimes **removes it** without untying it and the knots remain, **the mishna teaches us** that **a woman is protective of her hair** and avoids pulling it out, **and** therefore **she unties** the hairnet to avoid damaging her hair.


###### Shabbat 112a:4
[Shabbat 112a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shabbat/r/112a:4)

וּרְצוּעוֹת מִנְעָל וְסַנְדָּל. אִיתְּמַר: הִתִּיר רְצוּעוֹת מִנְעָל וְסַנְדָּל, תָּנֵי חֲדָא: חַיָּיב חַטָּאת, וְתַנְיָא אִידַּךְ: פָּטוּר אֲבָל אָסוּר, וְתַנְיָא אִידַּךְ: מוּתָּר לְכַתְּחִילָּה. קַשְׁיָא מִנְעָל אַמִּנְעָל, קַשְׁיָא סַנְדָּל אַסַּנְדָּל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
We learned in the mishna: **And** it is permitted to tie the **straps of a shoe** or **a sandal** on Shabbat. **It was stated** with regard to **one who untied** the **straps of a shoe** or **a sandal: One** *baraita* **taught** that one who did so on Shabbat is **liable** to bring **a sin-offering; and it was taught** in **another** *baraita* that **one is exempt** by Torah law, **and** it is **prohibited** to untie those straps *ab initio*; **and it was taught in another** *baraita* that **it is permitted** to untie these knots ***ab initio*.** This is **difficult,** as there is a contradiction between one statement with regard to **a shoe** and another statement with regard to the straps of **a shoe;** and this is **difficult,** as there is a contradiction between one statement with regard to the straps of **a sandal** and another statement with regard to the straps of **a sandal.**


###### Shabbat 112a:5
[Shabbat 112a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shabbat/r/112a:5)

מִנְעָל אַמִּנְעָל לָא קַשְׁיָא: הָא דְּקָתָנֵי חַיָּיב חַטָּאת — בִּדְאוּשְׁכָּפֵי. פָּטוּר אֲבָל אָסוּר — בְּדַרְבָּנַן. מוּתָּר לְכַתְּחִלָּה — בְּדִבְנֵי מָחוֹזָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains: The apparent contradiction between one statement with regard to **a shoe** and the other statement with regard to **a shoe is not difficult,** as **that *baraita*, which teaches that one is liable** to bring **a sin-offering, is referring to a shoemaker’s** knot, which is permanent as it holds the shoe together. The *baraita* that states that **he is exempt** by Torah law **and** it is **prohibited** by rabbinic decree is referring **to** the shoe worn by **Sages,** as they often tie their shoes loosely so they can easily put on and remove their shoes. The *baraita* that teaches that it is **permitted** to tie shoes ***ab initio* is referring to** such knots used by **the residents of** the city of **Meḥoza,** who are meticulous in their dress and who tie and untie their shoes every day.


###### Shabbat 112a:6
[Shabbat 112a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shabbat/r/112a:6)

סַנְדָּל אַסַּנְדָּל לָא קַשְׁיָא: הָא דְּקָתָנֵי חַיָּיב חַטָּאת — בִּדְטַיָּיעֵי דְּקָטְרִי אוּשְׁכָּפֵי. פָּטוּר אֲבָל אָסוּר — בִּדְחוּמַרְתָּא דְּקָטְרִי אִינְהוּ. מוּתָּר לְכַתְּחִילָּה — בְּסַנְדָּל דְּנָפְקִי בֵּיהּ בֵּי תְרֵי, כִּדְרַב יְהוּדָה. דְּרַב יְהוּדָה אֲחוּהּ דְּרַב סַלָּא חֲסִידָא הֲוָה לֵיהּ הָהוּא זוּגָא דְּסַנְדָּלֵי, זִמְנִין דְּנָפֵיק בֵּיהּ אִיהוּ, זִימְנִין נָפֵיק בֵּיהּ יָנוֹקֵיהּ. אֲתָא לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּאַבָּיֵי, אֲמַר לֵיהּ: כְּהַאי גַּוְנָא מַאי? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: חַיָּיב חַטָּאת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Similarly, the contradiction between one statement with regard to the straps of **a sandal** and the other statement with regard to the straps of **a sandal is not difficult,** as **that** *baraita,* **which teaches** that one is **liable** to bring **a sin-offering, is referring to Arab** sandals, for **which shoemakers tie** permanent knots. And the *baraita* that teaches that **he is exempt** by Torah law **and** it is **prohibited** by rabbinic decree **is referring to straps that they,** i.e., ordinary people, **tie.** The *baraita* that teaches that it is **permitted** to tie and untie the straps of a sandal ***ab initio* is referring to a sandal** shared by **two** people **who** alternate **going out** at different times. They untie and retie the straps each time to ensure that the sandals will fit properly, **like** the sandals of **Rav Yehuda; as Rav Yehuda, brother of Rav Sala Ḥasida, had a pair of sandals,** and **sometimes he would go out** wearing them and **sometimes his child would go out** wearing them. Rav Yehuda **came before Abaye** and **said to him: What** is the ruling **in** a case **of this kind?** May I tie the straps on Shabbat? Abaye **said to** him: Doing so renders you **liable to** bring **a sin-offering.**


###### Shabbat 112a:7
[Shabbat 112a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shabbat/r/112a:7)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ: הַשְׁתָּא פָּטוּר אֲבָל אָסוּר קָא קַשְׁיָא לִי, ״חַיָּיב חַטָּאת״ קָאָמְרַתְּ לִי?! מַאי טַעְמָא? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: מִשּׁוּם דִּבְחוֹל נָמֵי זִימְנִין נָפֵיקְנָא בֵּיהּ אֲנָא, זִימְנִין נָפֵיק בֵּיהּ יָנוֹקָא. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אִי הָכִי, מוּתָּר לְכַתְּחִילָּה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rav Yehuda **said to** him: **Now,** even if your ruling in that case had been that one is **exempt** by Torah law **but** it is still **prohibited** by rabbinic law, it **would be difficult for me,** and **you say to me** that the ruling is that one is **liable to bring a sin-offering.** Abaye asked him: **What is the reason** for that difficulty? Rav Yehuda **said to** him: **Because on weekdays too I sometimes go out** wearing them **and sometimes my child goes out** wearing them. Abaye **said to him: If so, it is permitted** to untie the straps ***ab initio*.**


###### Shabbat 112a:8
[Shabbat 112a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shabbat/r/112a:8)

רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה הֲוָה קָאָזֵיל בָּתְרֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי אֲבָהוּ בְּכַרְמְלִית. אִיפְּסִיק רְצוּעָה דְּסַנְדָּלֵיהּ. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: מַאי אֶעֱבֵיד לֵיהּ? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: שְׁקוֹל גֶּמִי לַח דַּחֲזֵי לְמַאֲכַל בְּהֵמָה, וּכְרוֹךְ עִילָּוֵיהּ. אַבָּיֵי הֲוָה קָאֵי קַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב יוֹסֵף. אִיפְּסִיק לֵיהּ רְצוּעָה. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: מַאי אֶיעֱבֵיד לֵיהּ? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: שִׁבְקֵיהּ. מַאי שְׁנָא מִדְּרַבִּי יִרְמְיָה? הָתָם לָא מִינְּטַר, הָכָא מִינְּטַר. וְהָא מָנָא הוּא, דְּאִי בָּעֵינָא הָפֵיכְנָא לֵיהּ מִיָּמִין לִשְׂמֹאל? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: מִדְּקָמְתָרֵץ רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אַלִּיבָּא דְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה, שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Yirmeya was walking after Rabbi Abbahu in a *karmelit*** on Shabbat when **the strap of his sandal tore.** Rabbi Yirmeya **said to** Rabbi Abbahu: **What should I do to it?** Rabbi Abbahu **said to him: Take a moist reed fit for animal consumption and wrap it around** the sandal to fasten it. And the Gemara relates: **Abaye was standing before Rav Yosef** on Shabbat when **the strap** of **his** sandal **tore.** Abaye **said to** Rav Yosef: **What should I do with it?** He **said to him: Leave it** and do not move it. Abaye said to him: **How is this** case **different from** that of **Rabbi Yirmeya?** He answered him: **There** the sandal would **not** have been **protected; here** it will be **protected.** Abaye said to him: **But it** remains **a utensil** and may therefore be moved on Shabbat, **as if I so desire, I can switch it from the right** foot **to the left** foot and wear it. Rav Yosef **said to** him: **From** the fact **that Rabbi Yoḥanan explains** the matter **in accordance with** the opinion **of Rabbi Yehuda,** as will be explained, **conclude from it** that **the *halakha* is in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Yehuda.** Therefore, a torn sandal is not considered to be a utensil even if it were switched, i.e., turned around.


###### Shabbat 112a:9
[Shabbat 112a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shabbat/r/112a:9)

מַאי הִיא? דְּתַנְיָא: סַנְדָּל שֶׁנִּפְסְקוּ שְׁתֵּי אׇזְנָיו, אוֹ שְׁתֵּי תְרֵסִיּוֹתָיו, אוֹ שֶׁנִּיטַּל כׇּל הַכַּף שֶׁלּוֹ — טָהוֹר. אַחַת מֵאׇזְנָיו, אוֹ אַחַת מִתְּרֵסִיּוֹתָיו, אוֹ שֶׁנִּיטַּל רוֹב הַכַּף שֶׁלּוֹ — טָמֵא. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: נִפְסְקָה פְּנִימִית — טָמֵא. הַחִיצוֹנָה — טָהוֹר. וְאָמַר עוּלָּא, וְאִיתֵּימָא רַבָּה בַּר בַּר חָנָה אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: כְּמַחֲלוֹקֶת לְעִנְיַן טוּמְאָה כָּךְ מַחֲלוֹקֶת לְעִנְיַן שַׁבָּת, אֲבָל לֹא לְעִנְיַן חֲלִיצָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **What is that** opinion of Rabbi Yehuda? **As it was taught** in a *baraita*: **A sandal** that was ritually impure, **whose two ears** that hold the straps **or whose two straps** (*ge’onim*) **broke, or whose entire sole was removed,** becomes **ritually pure** because it is no longer a utensil. However, if only **one of its ears or one of its straps** broke, **or** if only **most** but not all **of its sole was removed,** it remains **impure. Rabbi Yehuda says:** If the **inner** strap **broke** it remains **impure,** because the outer strap can still be used. If **the outer** strap **broke** it is rendered **pure. And Ulla, and some say Rabba bar bar Ḥana, said** that **Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Like** there is a **dispute with regard to ritual impurity, so too,** there is a **dispute with regard to Shabbat,** i.e., whether or not it is permitted to wear such a sandal on Shabbat. **However,** there is **no** dispute **with regard to *ḥalitza*.**


###### Shabbat 112a:10
[Shabbat 112a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shabbat/r/112a:10)

וְהָוֵינַן בַּהּ: [רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן] אַלִּיבָּא דְּמַאן? אִילֵימָא אַלִּיבָּא דְּרַבָּנַן: מִדִּלְעִנְיַן טוּמְאָה מָנָא הָוֵי — לְעִנְיַן שַׁבָּת נָמֵי מָנָא הָוֵי, אֲבָל לֹא לַחֲלִיצָה — דְּלָאו מָנָא הוּא, וְהָתְנַן: חָלְצָה שֶׁל שְׂמֹאל בַּיָּמִין חֲלִיצָתָהּ כְּשֵׁרָה. וְאֶלָּא אַלִּיבָּא דְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה: מִדִּלְעִנְיַן טוּמְאָה לָאו מָנָא הוּא — לְעִנְיַן שַׁבָּת נָמֵי לָאו מָנָא הוּא, אֲבָל לֹא לַחֲלִיצָה דְּמָנָא הוּא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And we discussed** this issue: **In accordance with whose** opinion is the statement of **Rabbi Yoḥanan? If you say** that it is **in accordance with** the opinion of **the Rabbis,** and the *baraita* is explained as follows: **From** the fact **that it is a utensil with regard to ritual impurity, it is also a utensil with regard to Shabbat, but** it is **not** considered **a utensil with regard to *ḥalitza*.** However, **didn’t we learn** in a mishna: **If she removed the left** shoe, which was **on the right** foot of her brother-in-law, **her *ḥalitza* is valid?** Apparently, a woman can perform *ḥalitza* even when the shoe is on the wrong foot, and it is not deemed unfit for *ḥalitza*. **Rather,** Rabbi Yoḥanan’s opinion must be in **accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Yehuda,** and is saying the following: **From** the fact **that with regard to impurity it is not a utensil, with regard to Shabbat it is also not a utensil. However,** that is **not** the case **with regard to *ḥalitza*,** for which **it is a utensil.**


###### Shabbat 112a:11
[Shabbat 112a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shabbat/r/112a:11)

אֵימַר דְּאָמְרִינַן חָלְצָה שֶׁל שְׂמֹאל בַּיָּמִין חֲלִיצָתָהּ כְּשֵׁרָה — הִיכָא דִּלְמִילְּתֵיהּ מָנָא הוּא, הָכָא לְמִילְּתֵיהּ לָאו מָנָא הוּא, דְּהָא אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה: נִפְסְקָה הַחִיצוֹנָה טָהוֹר — אַלְמָא לָאו מָנָא הוּא! לְעוֹלָם אַלִּיבָּא דְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה. אֵימָא: וְכֵן לַחֲלִיצָה. וְהָא קָמַשְׁמַע לַן: דְּכִי אָמְרִינַן חָלְצָה שֶׁל שְׂמֹאל בְּשֶׁל יָמִין חֲלִיצָתָהּ כְּשֵׁרָה — הֵיכָא

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **Say that we said** that if **she removed the left** shoe which was **on the right** foot, **her *ḥalitza* is valid,** that applies only in a case **where it** is fit as **a utensil for its usual purpose,** i.e., it can be used as footwear. However, **here it is not** fit as **a utensil for its usual purpose, as Rabbi Yehuda said:** If **the outer** strap of the sandal **tore,** the sandal is rendered **ritually pure. Apparently,** according to Rabbi Yehuda, **it is not a utensil.** Rabbi Yoḥanan’s statement is difficult according to both opinions. The Gemara answers: **Actually,** his opinion is in accordance with the opinion of **Rabbi Yehuda;** however, emend his statement and **say** that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: **And** this is the *halakha* **with regard to *ḥalitza* as well. And this teaches us that when we say** that if **she removed the left** shoe that was **on the right** foot **her *ḥalitza* is valid,** that is only in a case **where**