ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous dafShabbos 61
(a) If one tended to wear the shoe on the foot *with* the wound, it would
mean that people normally wear shoes to avoid hurting themselves, when they
knock their feet against obstacles.
(b) Therefore, he is allowed to go out wearing the one shoe. Why?
Because when people see him limping, they will know that he has a wound,
and they will realize that he is wearing his shoe to protect his bad foot
(as for the good foot, they will also realize that he has strong feet and
does not need shoes to protect them). Consequently, there is no reason to
suspect him of carrying the second shoe under his clothes.
According to Rashi's Rebbes (who give the reason for the prohibition of
going out with one shoe - because people will laugh at him and he will come
to carry it) he will in any case, not take off the shoe from his wounded
foot - even if people *do* laugh at him, because he needs to protect his
(c) According to those who learn that he wears the one shoe on his
*healthy* foot, that means that people tend to wear shoes for comfort.
Consequently, everyone will realize that he is wearing the one shoe for
comfort, and that he is not wearing a shoe on his second foot because it is sore and he cannot put
it on. They will neither suspect him of carrying the second shoe, nor will
they laugh at him, and that is why he is permitted to go out wearing only
the *one* shoe.
(a) Rebbi Yochanan holds that a person should put on his left shoe first -
like by Tefilin, where the *left* hand takes precedence over the *right*.
So what he was saying was, that if Rav Sheman bar Aba expected him to put
on the right shoe first, then he was declaring it wounded.
(b) Rebbi Yochanan seemed to have been saying that Rav Sheman was declaring
the *right* foot wounded, which would have mean that he is of the opinion
that a person with a wound puts the shoe on the wounded foot - like Rav
It is not certain however, that that is what he meant; what he may have
meant was that by giving him the right shoe first, Rav Sheman was declaring
the *left* foot to be wounded, because one tends to put the shoe on the
foot that is *not* wounded - like Chiya bar Rav; what he meant to say to
Rav Sheman bar Aba was 'You declared *it* - *the left foot*, wounded.'
(c) The Gemara suggests that one puts on the *right* shoe first (like the
Beraisa), but that one ties first the shoe-laces of the *left* one (like
(d) One should always wash the right hand and the right leg first, and when
it comes to anointing, the head - the 'King' of all the limbs - should be
(a) Even those who hold that Shabbos *is* Zeman Tefilin, will not permit
Tefilin to be worn in the street. Why not?
Because should he need to go to the bath-room, he is obligated to remove
them, in which case, we are afraid that he might carry them four Amos in
(b) On the other hand, even those who say that Shabbos is *not* Zeman
Tefilin, will agree that someone who does, will not be not Chayav Chatas,
since he is wearing themt like a garment.
(a) Had the Mishnah written 've'Lo be'Kamei'a, bi'Zeman she'Eino
*Mumcheh*', we would have said that the *Kamei'a* has to be tried (as well
as the person being an expert) before one is permitted to wear it on
Shabbos; but now that it writes 'bi'Zeman she'Eino *Min* Ha'Mumcheh', we
can infer that it is sufficient if the *person who wrote is* is an expert,
even if the particular Kamei'a with which he wants to go out, is not tried.
(b) A tried Kamei'a is one whose formula has been used to cure three
(c) A person is called an expert in this field, if he wrote three different
formulas for three people, all of which worked.
(d) One may go out with a tried Kamei'a on Shabbos whether it contains
writing or spices, whether the person wearing it is dangerously ill or just sick, and whether it is to prevent an epileptic from going into a fit or to
prevent someone from becoming an epileptic.
(a) One is permitted to tie or untie (using a knot that is permitted on
Shabbos) a Kamei'a, even in the Reshus ha'Rabim.
(b) When wearing a tried Kamei'a on Shabbos, one should take care not to
tie it to a ring or to a bracelet, because then it will look as if he is
wearing it as an ornament, and not as a Kamei'a.
(a) The Beraisa which requires *three* people to have been cured, is
speaking not about rendering the person an expert, by writing three
different Cameo's (usually that means three different people, though he
would also become an expert for curing the same person from three different
illnesses, using three different Kamei'os).
(b) Rav Papa considers a man who writes three different formulas for three
people, and each one cured (even the same person) three times, to be an
expert, and each of the three Kamei'os to be tried.
(c) If a man writes three different formulas for three different people -
each of which cures only once or twice - he considers the man to be an
expert, but not the Kamei'a to be tried.
(d) And if he writes the same formula for three different people, then Rav
Papa considers the Kamei'a to be tried, but not the man to be an expert.
(a) What Rav Papa is uncertain about however, is if the three different
fromulas that a man wrote for the *same* person, render him an expert;
whether we say that, since the man wrote three Kamei'os that worked, he has
become an expert, or that, the fact that it is the same sick man who was
cured three times, is due to the sick man's Mazal.
(b) This is not comparable to what we learnt above, that a Kamei'a which
healed a person three times renders the Kamei'a tried - and we do not
attribute the success of the Kamei'a to the man's Mazal - because it is
more logical there, to ascribe the success to the Kamei'a, than to the
Mazal of the sick person. Whereas here, who says that we should attribute
the success of the cure to the man who wrote it, and not to the (Mazal of)
the sick man (seeing as they are both men)?
(a) We know already - from a Beraisa - that Kamei'a (among a list of other
holy writings, such as Berachos) may *not* be saved (into a courtyard which
has no Eiruv), in face of a fire. In that case, the Sha'aleh of the Gemara
whether a Kamei'a has sanctity, cannot pertain to saving them from a fire.
(b) Nor can it have been regarding putting them into Genizah, as opposed to
throwing them away, since we have learnt in another Beraisa that even the
handle of a vessel which has the Name of Hashem written or engraved on it
requires Genizah, so why should a Kamei'a not?
(c) The Sha'aleh must therefore be whether one is permitted to go with a
Kamei'a into a bathroom.
(d) We have already inferred from our Mishnah that one is permitted to go
out with a tried Kamei'a on Shabbos. Now, if Kamei'os had Kedushah, then
why would we not forbid one to go out with them, for the same reason that
one is forbidden to go out with Tefilin ; namely, because he may have to go
to the bathroom, in which case he will be obligated to remove them and will
then go on to carry them (as we explained above).
(a) It is not possible to establish our Mishnah by ...
1. ... a Kamei'a of spices and not of writing, or ...
... to resolve our difficulty, since we have already learnt in a Beraisa,
that the Mishnah pertains to a Kamei'a of spices as well as to one of
writing, and to a person who is just sick, as well as to one whose life is
2. ... a 'Choleh she'Yesh Bo Sakanah' ...
(b) Rebbi Oshayah has taught us in yet another Beraisa that a Kamei'a is
only considered a Tachshit if it is *worn* the way one normally wears it,
but someone who carries it in his hand is Chayav for carrying on Shabbos.
(c) The Gemara finally concludes that, even if a Kamei's *does* have
Kedushah, one would not be obligated to remove it before entering the
bathroom, because we are speaking here when the Kamei'a is covered with
(d) This will not however, help with regard to Tefilin - to permit him to
enter the bathroom with them on his head - because of the 'Shin' which is
carved on the Box of the Tefilin shel Rosh (Apparently one would be
permitted to enter the bathroom wearing the Tefilin shel Yad).
1. A 'Siryon' is a suit of armor.
2. A 'Kasda' is a leather hat worn underneath the helmet.
3. 'Magpayim' are metal socks.