## Shabbat Daf 112b

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

דִּלְמִילְּתֵיהּ מָנָא הוּא, אֲבָל הָכָא — לְמִילְּתֵיהּ לָאו מָנָא הוּא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


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

וּמִי אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן הָכִי? וְהָאָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: הֲלָכָה כִּסְתַם מִשְׁנָה, וּתְנַן: סַנְדָּל שֶׁנִּפְסְקָה אַחַת מֵאׇזְנָיו וְתִיקְּנָהּ — טָמֵא מִדְרָס, נִפְסְקָה שְׁנִיָּה וְתִיקְּנָהּ — טָהוֹר מִלְּטַמֵּא מִדְרָס, אֲבָל טָמֵא מַגַּע מִדְרָס. מַאי לָאו לָא שְׁנָא פְּנִימִית וְלָא שְׁנָא חִיצוֹנָה!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **Did Rabbi Yoḥanan** in fact **say that** the *halakha* is in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda, who says that if the outer strap broke the sandal becomes pure? **Didn’t Rabbi Yoḥanan say: The *halakha* is in accordance with an unattributed mishna? And we learned** in a mishna: **A sandal that** became ritually impure with impurity imparted by the treading of a *zav*, and **one of its ears broke and he repaired it,** this sandal is still **impure** with ritual impurity imparted by **treading,** since a broken ear does not render the sandal useless and it remains a utensil. If the **second** ear **broke and he repaired it, it is ritually pure** in the sense that it no longer **renders** other objects **ritually impure** in the same way a vessel that became a primary source of ritual impurity by means of impurity imparted by **treading** does, since when both ears tear it is no longer a utensil. **However, it is** itself **ritually impure** with ritual impurity imparted by **treading** due to **contact** with a vessel that is impure, i.e., contact with itself. Since the sandal now has only one torn ear, it is still considered a utensil which is capable of contracting impurity, and it is as if it contracted impurity from itself in its previous state. **Is** this statement **not** an indication that **there is no difference** whether it was the **inner** strap **or** the **outer** strap that broke, as no single ear that breaks terminates the sandal’s use? This contradicts Rabbi Yoḥanan’s statement.


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

לָא, פְּנִימִית דַּוְקָא. אֲבָל חִיצוֹנָה מַאי — טָהוֹר? אִי הָכִי, אַדְּתָנֵי: נִפְסְקָה שְׁנִיָּה וְתִיקְּנָהּ — טָהוֹר מִן הַמִּדְרָס אֲבָל טָמֵא מַגַּע מִדְרָס, נִיפְלוֹג בְּדִידַהּ: בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים — שֶׁנִּפְסְקָה פְּנִימִית, אֲבָל חִיצוֹנָה — טָהוֹר! אָמַר רַב יִצְחָק בֶּן יוֹסֵף: תְּהֵא מִשְׁנָתֵנוּ בְּסַנְדָּל שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ אַרְבַּע אׇזְנַיִם וְאַרְבַּע תְּרֵסִיּוֹתַיִם, שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁבּוֹר דְּבָרָיו שֶׁל רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara rejects this: **No,** this mishna is referring **specifically** to the **inner** strap. When the inner strap breaks, even Rabbi Yehuda concedes that the sandal remains ritually impure. The Gemara asks: **However,** if the **outer** strap breaks, **what** is the *halakha*? Is it that the sandal is **pure? If so, instead of teaching:** If the **second** ear **broke and he repaired it, it is ritually pure** in the sense that it no longer **renders** other objects **ritually impure** as a vessel that became a primary source of ritual impurity by means of impurity imparted by **treading; however, it is** itself **ritually impure** due to **contact** with a vessel that is impure due to contact with an object that became ritually impure with impurity imparted by **treading, let him make a distinction** within the case **itself: In what** case **was this statement said?** In a case **where** the **inner** strap **breaks. However,** if the **outer** strap breaks, the sandal becomes **ritually pure. Rav Yitzḥak ben Yosef said: Let our mishna** be interpreted as referring **to a sandal that has four ears and four straps,** and it can be explained that when it says that the second one broke, it was referring to the second outer one. It is worthwhile to interpret it this way so as **not to break,** i.e., contradict, **Rabbi Yoḥanan’s statement.**


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

כִּי אֲתָא רָבִין אָמַר רַב חָנָן בַּר אַבָּא אָמַר רַב: הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה. וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: אֵין הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה. וּמִי אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן הָכִי? וְהָא מִדִּמְתָרֵץ רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אַלִּיבָּא דְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה, שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ כְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה סְבִירָא לֵיהּ! אָמוֹרָאֵי נִינְהוּ וְאַלִּיבָּא דְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**When Ravin came** from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he related that **Rav Ḥanan bar Abba said** that **Rav said: The *halakha* is in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Yehuda. And Rabbi Yoḥanan said: The *halakha* is not in accordance** with the opinion of **Rabbi Yehuda.** The Gemara asks: **And did Rabbi Yoḥanan** actually **say this? From** the fact **that Rabbi Yoḥanan** provided an **explanation in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Yehuda, conclude from it that he holds** that the *halakha* **is in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Yehuda.** The Gemara answers: **They are** different ***amora’im*** who made their statements **in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Yoḥanan.**


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

תְּנַן הָתָם: כׇּל כְּלֵי בַּעֲלֵי בָתִּים, שִׁיעוּרָן כְּרִמּוֹנִים. בָּעֵי רַבִּי חִזְקִיָּה: נִיקַּב כְּמוֹצִיא זַיִת וּסְתָמוֹ, וְחָזַר וְנִיקַּב כְּמוֹצִיא זַיִת וּסְתָמוֹ, עַד שֶׁהִשְׁלִימוֹ לְמוֹצִיא רִימּוֹן, מַהוּ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara cites another discussion related to the previous *halakha*. **We learned there** in a mishna in tractate *Kelim*: **All** ritually impure wooden **utensils belonging to** ordinary **homeowners** become pure through breaking the utensil if they have holes **the size of pomegranates. Ḥizkiya asked: What** is the *halakha* when a utensil **was perforated** with a hole large enough **for an olive to emerge, and he sealed it, and then it was perforated again** with a hole large enough **for an olive to emerge, and he sealed it,** and this went on **until** the total area of all the holes **completed** a space large enough for **a pomegranate to emerge?** In other words, do we say that because the sum of the areas of all the holes adds up to the size of a pomegranate, the utensil is pure, or do we say that since the previous hole was filled before the next hole was formed, the utensil remains ritually impure?


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

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: רַבִּי, שָׁנִיתָ לָנוּ סַנְדָּל שֶׁנִּפְסְקָה אַחַת מֵאׇזְנָיו וְתִיקְּנָהּ — טָמֵא מִדְרָס. נִפְסְקָה שְׁנִיָּה וְתִיקְּנָהּ — טָהוֹר מִן הַמִּדְרָס, אֲבָל טָמֵא מַגַּע מִדְרָס. וְאָמְרִינַן לָךְ: מַאי שְׁנָא רִאשׁוֹנָה — דְּהָא קָיְימָא שְׁנִיָּה? שְׁנִיָּה נָמֵי, [הָא] מִתַּקְּנָה רִאשׁוֹנָה!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Yoḥanan,** his student, **said to him: Master, you taught us** that with regard to a **sandal that** became ritually impure by impurity imparted by the treading of a *zav*, and **one of its ears broke and he repaired it,** this sandal remains **ritually impure** with impurity imparted by **treading.** If **the second** ear **broke and he repaired it,** the sandal is **ritually pure** in the sense that it no longer renders other objects ritually impure in the same way a vessel that became a primary source of ritual impurity by means of impurity imparted by **treading** does. **However,** it is itself **ritually impure** with ritual impurity imparted by **treading** due to **contact** with a vessel that is impure, i.e., contact with itself. **And we said to you: What is different** when **the first** ear breaks that the sandal remains impure? It is **because** the **second one** is **intact. So too,** when the **second** ear breaks, **the first one is repaired,** and there is only one torn ear.


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

וַאֲמַרְתְּ לַן עֲלֵיהּ: פָּנִים חֲדָשׁוֹת בָּאוּ לְכָאן. הָכָא נָמֵי פָּנִים חֲדָשׁוֹת בָּאוּ לְכָאן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And you said to us** in **this** regard that the reason the sandal is pure is because **a new face has arrived here.** The legal status of the sandal with the two repaired ears is not that of the original sandal; it is a new sandal. **Here too,** with regard to a utensil that was perforated several times and sealed each time, let us say with regard to the sandal as well that **a new face has arrived here,** and it is ritually pure because the repaired sandal is a new entity and not the original sandal.


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

קָרֵי עֲלֵיהּ: לֵית דֵּין בַּר אִינָשׁ. אִיכָּא דְאָמְרִי: כְּגוֹן דֵּין בַּר אִינָשׁ. אָמַר רַבִּי זֵירָא אָמַר רָבָא בַּר זִימּוּנָא: אִם רִאשׁוֹנִים בְּנֵי מַלְאָכִים — אָנוּ בְּנֵי אֲנָשִׁים. וְאִם רִאשׁוֹנִים בְּנֵי אֲנָשִׁים — אָנוּ כַּחֲמוֹרִים. וְלֹא כַּחֲמוֹרוֹ שֶׁל רַבִּי חֲנִינָא בֶּן דּוֹסָא וְשֶׁל רַבִּי פִּנְחָס בֶּן יָאִיר, אֶלָּא כִּשְׁאָר חֲמוֹרִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Ḥizkiya was so impressed by Rabbi Yoḥanan’s comment that **he exclaimed about him: This is not a human being,** but an angel. **Some say** that he said: **This is an** ideal **human being.** On a similar note, **Rabbi Zeira said** that **Rava bar Zimuna said: If the early** generations **are** characterized as **sons of angels, we are the sons of men. And if the early** generations **are** characterized as **the sons of men, we are akin to donkeys. And** I do **not** mean that we are **akin to** either **the donkey of Rabbi Ḥanina ben Dosa or** the donkey of **Rabbi Pinḥas ben Yair,** who were both extraordinarily intelligent donkeys; **rather,** we are **akin to other** typical **donkeys.**


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

וְנוֹדוֹת יַיִן וָשֶׁמֶן. פְּשִׁיטָא! לָא צְרִיכָא, דְּאִית לֵיהּ תַּרְתֵּי אוּנֵּי, מַהוּ דְתֵימָא: חֲדָא מִינַּיְיהוּ בַּטּוֹלֵי מְבַטֵּל לַהּ, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And** we learned in the mishna: It is permitted to tie the spouts of **wine or oil jugs.** The Gemara says: This is **obvious.** The Gemara explains: It is **only necessary** to teach this *halakha* in a case **where it,** the jug, **has two ears,** i.e., two spouts. **Lest you say: One of them, he voids it consequently defining** the knot on that opening permanent and therefore prohibited, **it teaches us** that this is not the case.


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

קְדֵירָה שֶׁל בָּשָׂר. פְּשִׁיטָא! לָא צְרִיכָא, דְּאִית לַהּ שְׁלָאכָא, מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא בַּטּוֹלֵי מְבַטֵּל לַהּ, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
We also learned in the mishna that it is even permitted to tie a garment to cover **a pot of meat.** The Gemara says: This is **obvious.** The Gemara explains: It is **only necessary** to teach this *halakha* a case **where it has a string** with which one could open a flap and empty the food. **Lest you say** that since a single opening usually suffices **he voids** the knot with which he ties the garment, **it teaches us** that this is not the case.


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

רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן יַעֲקֹב אוֹמֵר קוֹשְׁרָהּ כּוּ׳. פְּשִׁיטָא? לָא צְרִיכָא, דְּאִית לַהּ תַּרְתֵּי אִיסָּרֵי, מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
We also learned in the mishna that **Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov says: One may tie** a rope across an entrance before an animal so that it will not go out. The Gemara says: This is **obvious.** The Gemara explains: It is **only necessary** to teach this *halakha* in a case **where** the entrance **has two ropes. Lest you say**