Ask A Question about the Daf

Previous daf

Shabbos 112

1) DIFFERENT TYPES OF KNOTS

OPINIONS: The Gemara explains that there are three types of knots with regard to the Melachah of tying: a knot which is Asur to be tied and one is Chayav for tying; a knot with is Asur to be tied but one is Patur for tying; and a knot which is permitted to be tied. What knot falls into each category?

(a) RASHI maintains that one is Chayav for tying a knot which is meant to last for a *long* time, regardless of the quality of the knot (that is, whether it is a professional knot or an unprofessional one). One is Patur for tying a knot that is meant to last for an *intermediate* amount of time, although tying such a knot is still forbidden. It is completely permissible to tie a knot that is meant to last only for a *short* amount of time.

(b) The RE'EM cited by the MORDECHAI writes that if one has *definite* intention to leave the knot for a long time, he is Chayav. If he *might* leave it for a long time, but he is not sure, then he is Patur. If he is *definitely* leaving the knot for a short time, it is permissible.

(c) The RIF and the RAMBAM rule that one is Chayav only if two criteria are met: the knot must be *professionally* tied, and it must be *long lasting*. If only one of those conditions are met, then one is Patur. If neither condition is met, then it is permissible. What defines a professionally tied knot? The SHILTEI GIBORIM explains that it is a strong knot. The MISHNAH BERURAH adds that it is a knot that will never become undone by itself.

HALACHAH: The SHULCHAN ARUCH (OC 317:1) cites the opinion of the Rif and Rambam (c), that it is permissible to tie a knot only if it is not a professional knot and is tied to last for a short time. The REMA cites the opinion of Rashi (a) that if it is a permanent knot, one is Chayav regardless of the expertise of the knot.

OPINIONS: Rashi (above, 1:a), the Re'em (1:b), and the Rif and Rambam (1:c) all require that the knot be permanent in order for one to be Chayav for tying it. What is a permanent knot which is forbidden to tie, and what is a temporary knot that is not forbidden to tie?

PERMANENT

From Rashi and the Rif, it appears that a permanent knot is defined as one that is tied in order to be left forever, and one has no plans to *ever* untie.

TEMPORARY

(a) A knot that is permissible to tie l'Chatchilah, which is not long lasting at all, is defined by the REMA in the name of the TUR and MORDECHAI as a knot tied with intention to leave it for less than *one week*.

(b) RABEINU YERUCHAM (cited by the Beis Yosef) says that it is permissible if it is tied to last for less than *three days*.

(c) The Rema cites the KOL BO who rules like Rashi in our Sugya that a temporary knot that is permissible to tie is one that is normally untied *every day*.

HALACHAH: Regarding how long is considered "temporary," the Rema cites the various opinions above and writes that one should be stringent and not tie a knot on Shabbos to last for more than one day.

QUESTION: The Gemara says that Rebbi Yirmeyah was once walking in a Karmelis when one of the straps of his sandal tore. Rebbi Avahu permitted him to tie a temporary string around it so that he could wear it until he arrived home. The Gemara relates a second episode, in which Abaye's shoe tore while he was in a private courtyard, and Rav Yosef ruled that the broken shoe was Muktzah. The Gemara says the difference between the two cases is due to the fact that in the first case, the shoe tore while he was in an unprotected area, and in the second case, it tore while he was in a protected area.

(a) What difference does it make where the person was when his shoe tore -- if it is Muktzah, it should be Muktzah no matter where it tore! Where do we find that one can move an object that is Muktzah to prevent monetary loss?

(b) Secondly, why should the shoe be Muktzah altogether? Since it can be used for some other useful purpose, it should be permitted to be handled!

ANSWER: The RASHBA cites the RA'AVAD who says that in the first case, Rebbi Yirmeyah was walking in a public area when the shoe tore. If he were to leave the torn shoe there, it would be usable for some other purpose because someone else would find it and use the broken shoe for some other useful purpose. In the second case, however, Abaye's shoe tore in a private area (a Chatzer). Since no one else would find the shoe there and take it to use for another purpose, and the owner of the shoe has the intention to sew back the broken strap, the broken shoe indeed has no other permissible use on Shabbos. The owner had intention to use it *only* as a shoe, and he will definitely mend it after Shabbos to use as a shoe. It is therefore Muktzah.

(For this reason, something like a torn button that falls of in the house, and will definitely be resewn after Shabbos, should be Muktzah.)

112

QUESTION: The Gemara cites a Mishnah which states that if one of the straps on the side of a sandal (which was Tamei with Tum'as Midras) tears and is repaired, the sandal is still Metamei Tum'as Midras. If the second strap (on the other side of the sandal) tears and is repaired, the sandal is no longer Metamei Midras, but it is Metamei *Maga* of Midras. Rashi explains that since the repaired shoe touched itself before it broke, while it was Tamei with Tum'as Midras, it became Tamei with Tum'as Maga Midras.

Why does the Mishnah say that the straps were repaired after each time they broke? The Halachah would seem to be the same even if the straps were not repaired -- when the first strap tears, the sandal is still usable and thus it retains its Tum'as Midras. When the second strap tears, it is no longer usable as a shoe, therefore it loses its Tum'as Midras. However, it is still usable for other puproses, therefore it can be Tamei with Maga Midras?

ANSWERS:

(a) RASHI (DH Tamei Midras) explains that it does not make a difference whether the straps were repaired or not. Even if they were not repaired, the Halachah would be the same. The reason the Mishnah states that the strap was repaired was to teach that *even though* the first strap was repaired and the shoe was a completely usable shoe, it still loses its Tumas Midras when the second strap breaks, because the shoe is not the same shoe that it was originally.

(b) TOSFOS (DH Sandal) points out that Rashi (in DH Mai Lav) is following the opinion that he originally wrote in his first version, which is printed in the margin of our Rashi. Rashi wrote there that even though the straps of the shoe are torn, the shoe is still considered to be a usable utensil because it can be used for some other useful purpose. However, in his final version, Rashi wrote (DH Aval Tamei) that once both straps are torn, the shoe is *not* considered a utensil at all, and if both straps were to be torn at one time, the shoe would be completely Tahor. Therefore, the Mishnah had to say that the first strap was repaired before the second strap broke, because otherwise, once the second strap broke and both straps were broken at the same time, it would not be a utensil and would not become Tamei at all.

Tosfos proves from a Mishnah in Kelim (26:4) that if both straps were torn at the same time, the sandal would indeed be Tahor, like the second version in Rashi. However, Tosfos points out that the *second* strap that tore did *not* have to be repaired in order for the shoe to be Tamei with Tum'as Maga Midras. The only reason the Mishnah says that the second strap was repaired is to be consistent with the first part of the Mishnah, which necessarily states that the *first* strap was repaired (for if it was still ripped at the time that the second one ripped, the shoe would be entirely Tahor).