Yerushalmi Yevamot 12:2 ירושלמי יבמות י״ב:ב׳

MISHNAH: If she performed ḥalîṣah with a sandal that was not his⁴⁷The levir’s., with a wooden sandal⁴⁸For the Babli, a wooden (or cork) core covered by leather. The Yerushalmi notes that these restrictions are Babylonian., or with a left [foot sandal] on the right [foot], the ḥalîṣah is valid. If she performed ḥalîṣah with [a sandal that was] too large but he could walk in it, or one too small which covers most of his foot⁴⁹The foot sole., the ḥalîṣah is valid. If she performed ḥalîṣah in the night, the ḥalîṣah is valid; Rebbi Eliezer declares it invalid. [If she performed ḥalîṣah] with her left hand, the ḥalîṣah is invalid but Rebbi Eliezer declares it valid.

HALAKHAH: “If she performed ḥalîṣah with a sandal that was not his,” etc. ⁵⁰A partial copy of this paragraph is in Sukkah 3:1. R. Lazar mentioned here is a Tanna. Rebbi Eleazar says, a ram’s horn⁵¹The ram’s horn used on New Year’s Day. belonging to idolatry⁵²The usufruct of any implements of idolatrous worship is forbidden. The horn is only permitted since Divine Commandments are not for enjoyment or use. The Babli, Roš Haššanah 28a, agrees. or to a “seduced city”⁵³A city in the Land of Israel that was seduced to embrace idolatry and defected by a communal vote. This city must be burned to the ground (Deut. 13:13–19) with all its belongings, of which any usufruct is forbidden; a case that never happened and never will happen (Tosephta Sanhedrin 14:1).
The Babli, Roš Haššanah 28a, disagrees in this case since a ram’s horn in a “seduced city” must be burned and therefore is considered to be ashes even if not burned. Arguments of this kind are absent in the Yerushalmi. is valid. Rebbi Ḥiyya stated, it is valid. Rebbi Hoshaia stated, it is invalid⁵⁴In the Babli, property of an idolatrous temple is undesirable, a dedicated gift to an idolatrous temple is prohibited, as is the shoe from a “seduced city”; 103b/104a.. Everybody agrees that such a palmbranch is invalid⁵⁵Mishnah Sukkah 3:1. The palmbranch stands for the three kinds of branches and the fruit that are taken together on the Festival of Booths (Lev. 23:40).. What is the difference between a ram’s horn and a palmbranch? Rebbi Yose said, for a palmbranch it is written: “You shall take for yourselves⁵⁶Lev. 23:40.,” from your own money. But here, “a day of horn blowing it shall be for you⁵⁷Num. 29:1.,” from any source. Rebbi Eleazar said, there he fulfills his obligation with the article itself, but here with its sound. Is any sound forbidden usufruct⁵⁸R. Eleazar the Amora argues that without reference to Scripture it is obvious that palmbranches from idolatrous property are unusable since the essence of the commandment is the acquisition of the branches.? Everybody agrees that a sandal from a “seduced city” is valid⁵⁹In the Babli, the uncontested rule is promulgated that a shoe from a “seduced city” is invalid; 104a. In the opinion of the Yerushalmi, a shoe may be worn as long as it exists; for the Babli the shoe is legally nonexistent as soon as it has been condemned to be burned, cf. Note 53.. For it is written “stripped of shoe,” from any source. Rebbi Mana said, as you say there, “a day of horn blowing it shall be for you,” from any source, so you say here, “stripped of shoe,” from any source.

“A wooden sandal.” The colleagues in the name of Rav: If only the edges⁶⁰Explanation of the Gaonic commentary to Tahorot, Mishnah Miqwa’ot 10:3, ed. Epstein: Arabic عرى “border, rim, brim”. are wooden⁶¹But the remainder of the sandal must be leather.. Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav: If only the bottom of the sole is wooden. There, they say in the name of Rav: If only the loops⁶²Explanation of Arukh; Arabic שראך “loop, net”. are wooden. Rebbi Hila in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Even if it is entirely of wood it is valid. A baraita supports Rebbi Joḥanan: “⁶³Tosephta Kelim Baba Batra 4:5. There, the addition “about impurity by stepping on it” is missing. In the Babli, Sabbat 66a, “a sandal of whitewashers” (who cannot wear leather sandals which would be destroyed by the whitewash). A straw sandal becomes impure by being stepped on⁶⁴The impurity of the person with gonorrhea is transferred on anything he puts his weight on even if he does not touch it (Lev. 15:5,6,26) and even if same material impervious to impurity separates the person from the object. This is called “impurity by being stepped on.” Wooden implements that do not enclose any volume (“flat wooden vessels”) cannot accept impurity. R. Aqiba does not agree that flat straw sandals are flat wooden vessels. and a woman may use it for ḥalîṣah, the words of Rebbi Aqiba, but the Sages do not agree about impurity by being stepped on⁶⁵This version implies that the Sages agree that a flat straw sandal may be used for ḥalîṣah. The Tosephta, which omits the last clause, follows the Babylonian tradition that a purely wooden sandal is inadmissible..”

⁶⁶This paragraph and the next are from Sabbath 4:2. The paragraph is quoted here because it starts with a quote of the continuation of the baraita quoted in the preceding paragraph.“⁶⁷Tosephta Kelim Baba Batra 4:5; Babli Sabbath 112a. A sandal whose holes, edges, or loops are torn or one of whose soles fell off is pure. If one of its holes, edges, or loops is torn or most of it soles fell of it is impure. Rebbi Jehudah says, on the inside it is impure, on the outside it is pure.⁶⁸Ritual impurity is restricted to Jewish persons, food, vessels and tools, and a leprous house. If a vessel or tool was damaged beyond repair, it becomes ritually pure. In this connection, “impure” means “a possible candidate for impurity” and “pure” “unable to become impure.” Rebbi Jehudah holds that people will repair even serious damage to their shoes if it can be done so as not to be noticed in public. The rabbis hold that even in such cases, people will not repair severely damaged shoes.
R. Jehudah holds that a person will repair sandals when the repair is not immediately visible from the outside. Therefore, if a strap or hole for the shoelaces is torn at the instep, towards the other foot, the shoe remains usable. The majority holds that one torn strap or a partially torn sole can always be repaired.” Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rebbi Tevele, Ḥanin bar Abba in the name of Rav: Practice follows Rebbi Jehuda as far as the Sabbath is concerned⁶⁹The same statement in Babli, Sabbath 112b.. A case came before Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac. He sent Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa to ask Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba. He⁷⁰R. Ḥiyya bar Abba, following his teacher R. Joḥanan (in a first version in Babli, Sabbath 112b). The Babli holds that this tradition of R. Joḥanan is not trustworthy. It is possible that the Yerushalmi agrees since R. Joḥanan is not mentioned here, but only his students and later Amoraim. said to him, just as they disagree about impurity so they disagree about the Sabbath, and instructed him following the rabbis. Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac asked himself: One heard saying, practice follows Rebbi Jehuda, and he instructed him following the rabbis? A case came before Rebbi Aḥa bar Isaac. He sent to ask Rebbi Ze‘ira and Rebbi Ze‘ira asked Rebbi Immi. The latter said to him: Following the words of him who declares impure, it is permitted to go out on it on the Sabbath. Following the words of him who declares pure, it is forbidden to go out on it on the Sabbath. He did not get anything out of him⁷¹He refused to decide between Rav and the Galilean rabbis. Note that all persons mentioned here are Babylonians; those with the title “Rebbi” are immigrants to Galilee..

It was stated: But he may walk on it until he reaches the entrance of his courtyard⁷²This paragraph deals only with the rules of the Sabbath. Even if a sandal is torn and no longer is a piece of clothing that may be moved on the Sabbath, one may walk on it until one reaches one’s courtyard where it can be left and picked up after the Sabbath.. Rebbi Aḥa and Rebbi Ze‘ira were walking on the highway. The sandal of Rebbi Aḥa was torn. When they came to the city gate, Rebbi Ze‘ira told him, that is the entrance of your courtyard⁷³As a rabbi, you must be more strict than people in general.. Rebbi Aḥa wound a fiber around. Rebbi Abbahu wound a bundle of Jew’s mallow⁷⁴Reading with I. Löw מלכניקי, Arabic ملو خيا “corchorus olitorius”, a kitchen vegetable, relative of jute. He derives the name from Greek μολόχη “mallow”. In the Babli, Sabbath 112a, R. Abbahu told R. Jeremiah to use textile fiber to lightly bind around a torn sandal.. Rebbi Abbahu was of the opinion that a bundle of Jew’s mallow is ready to be used⁷⁵As raw textile fiber, its use on the Sabbath would be forbidden. But as kitchen herb it is food and permitted to be used on the Sabbath.. Rebbi Jonah threw them away before the fried food store⁷⁶The passage is difficult to understand; in the parallel in Sabbath the word לחנותא “in the store” is missing.Since the store is supposed to be closed on the Sabbath, it just indicates that R. Jonah took off his sandals far from his home when a shoelace broke on the Sabbath.
For the translation of חליטר cf. Shevi‘it Chapter 7, Note 84. It is not necessary to translate טלק “to throw away” (documented from the Targumim), most of the meanings of Arabic طلق will be acceptable, such as “to take off, let go, loosen”.. That is little honor. The honor of Rebbi Eleazar obliged him to take it off⁷⁷Immediately when a shoelace broke.. Rebbi Jeremiah asked before Rebbi Ze‘ira: May one switch⁷⁸May one switch left and right sandal on the Sabbath if an outside ear was broken to hide the defect from sight?? He said to him, it is permitted. Nevertheless, he told him: go and look for an Elder and rely on him. He went out and found Rebbi Abba bar Mamal, asked him, and he permitted. Rebbi Yose said, the Mishnah said that this is clothing, since we have stated⁷⁹The Mishnah proves that sandal switching is practiced also on weekdays; therefore, it is permitted on the Sabbath since the switched sandals are legitimate pieces of clothing.: “Or with a left [foot sandal] on the right [foot], the ḥalîṣah is valid.” That means, in width. But in length it must cover most of the foot⁸⁰This has nothing to do with the prior discussion; it shows what is meant in the Mishnah which states that sandals with torn soles are acceptable. The sentence also is copied in Sabbath, implying that sandals with partially torn soles may also be worn on the Sabbath..

What is the reason of Rebbi Eliezer? “Before the Elders’ eyes⁸¹Deut. 25:9: “The sister-in-law shall approach him before the elder’s eyes”. R. Eliezer holds that one sees clearly only during daytime. This argument is not found in any of the parallel sources..” How do the rabbis uphold “before the Elders’ eyes”? That excludes a court of blind people. Rebbi Joḥanan said, the argument of Rebbi Eliezer seems to be inverted⁸²The same argument in the Babli, 104a.. There⁸³The purification of a leper requires that blood and oil be put on the right hand thumb and the right big toe of the healed person, Lev. 14:14,17. In Mishnah Nega‘im 14:9, R. Eliezer and R. Simeon disagree about the purification of a person missing his right hand thumb or right big toe; R. Eliezer insists that the right hand must be used in all cases., he says that the right hand is obligatory, but here, he says that the right hand is not obligatory. Rebbi Yose said, there it is written “the right hand”⁸⁴Lev. 14:14,17. In the Babli, 104a, this is the argument of the rabbis. In the Babli, R. Eliezer is defended by the argument that the leper has so many additional ceremonies that it is difficult to transfer any of his ceremonies to other cases., the right hand is obl;igatory, but here, where “the right hand” is not written, the right hand is notobligatory. Rebbi Yose from Sidon stated before Rebbi Jeremiah: “His ear”, “his ear”. Since “his ear” mentioned there refers to the right ear, so “his ear” mentioned here means the right ear⁸⁵This compares the ceremony of the leper with that of piercing the ear of the Hebrew slave who refuses to regain his freedom, Ex. 21:6, Deut. 15:17. In the latter verses it is not spelled out which ear has to be pierced. The argument that the ear must be the right one is quoted anonymously also in Yerushalmi Qiddušin Chapter 1, fol. 59d, Mekhilta dR. Ismael Mišpaṭim 2, Mekhilta dR. Simeon bar Ioḥai Mišpaṭim p.163, Sifry Deut. 122; in the name of R. Eliezer here and in the Babli 104a and Qiddušin 15a.. It also says “his foot”, “his foot”. He who infers from “his ear”, “his ear” infers from “his foot”, “his foot”; he who does not infer from “his ear”, “his ear” does not infer from “his foot”, “his foot”. But it was stated in the name of Rebbi Eliezer: “his foot”, “his foot”. That means, there are two statements about the words of Rebbi Eliezer⁸⁶In the Mishnah, R. Eliezer accepts the use of the left foot after the fact; in the baraita he declares use of the left foot as invalid.. He who argues from “his ear”, “his ear” argues from “his foot”, “his foot”; he who does not argue from “his ear”, “his ear” does not argue from “his foot”. And this Mishnah accepts neither “his ear”, “his ear” nor “his foot”, “his foot”⁸⁷That is, for R. Eliezer; but in the opinion of the Babli, the majority base their opinion on the comparison “foot, foot”..