Previous daf

1)

(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 wounded foot.

(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 Huna.
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 Rebbi Yochanan).

(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 given precedence.

(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 the street.

(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 people.

(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.

6)

(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 ...
2. ... a 'Choleh she'Yesh Bo Sakanah' ...

... 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 in danger.

(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 skin.

(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.