The relevant gemara is in Shabbat 61a. The preceding context is that one may go out on Shabbat with a single sandal if he has a wound on his foot, and Rav Huna says that this means with the sandal on the foot which has the wound. Now the gemara relates:
ואף רבי יוחנן סבר לה להא דרב הונא
דאמר ליה ר' יוחנן לרב שמן בר אבא הב לי מסנאי יהב ליה דימין
אמר ליה עשיתו מכה
ודילמא כחייא בר רב ס"ל והכי קאמר עשית של שמאל מכה
ואזדא רבי יוחנן לטעמיה דאמר ר' יוחנן כתפילין כך מנעלין מה תפילין בשמאל אף מנעלין בשמאל
מיתיבי כשהוא נועל נועל של ימין ואחר כך נועל של שמאל
אמר רב יוסף השתא דתניא הכי ואמר רבי יוחנן הכי דעבד הכי עבד ודעבד הכי עבד
אמר ליה אביי דילמא רבי יוחנן הא מתני' לא הוה שמיע ליה ואי הוה שמיע ליה הוה הדר ביה ואי נמי שמיע ליה וקסבר אין הלכה כאותה משנה
אמר רב נחמן בר יצחק ירא שמים יוצא ידי שתיהן ומנו מר בריה דרבנא היכי עביד סיים דימיניה ולא קטר וסיים דשמאליה וקטר והדר קטר דימיניה
אמר רב אשי חזינא לרב כהנא דלא קפיד
תנו רבנן כשהוא נועל נועל של ימין ואחר כך נועל של שמאל כשהוא חולץ חולץ של שמאל ואח"כ חולץ של ימין כשהוא רוחץ רוחץ של ימין ואח"כ רוחץ של שמאל כשהוא סך סך של ימין ואח"כ של שמאל והרוצה לסוך כל גופו סך ראשו תחילה מפני שהוא מלך על כל איבריו:Now, R. Johanan too holds as R. Huna. For R. Johanan said to R. Shamen b. Abba: Give me my sandals. When he gave him the right one, he [R. Johanan] observed, You treat it as though it had a wound. [No]. Perhaps he agrees with Hiyya b. Rab, and he meant thus: You treat the left [foot] as through it had a wound? Now, R. Johanan [here] follows his general view. For R. Johanan said: Like tefillin, so are shoes: just as tefillin [are donned] on the left [hand], so are shoes [put on] the left [foot first]. An objection is raised: When one puts on his shoes, he must put on the right first and then the left? — Said R. Joseph: Now that it was taught thus, while R. Johanan said the reverse, he who acts in either way acts [well]. Said Abaye to him: But perhaps R. Johanan did not hear this Baraitha, but if he had heard it, he would have retracted? Or perhaps he heard it and held that the halachah is not as that Mishnah {/brayta}?
R. Nahman b. Isaac said: A God-fearing person satisfies both views. And who is that? Mar, the son of Rabina. What did he do? He put on the right foot [sandal] but did not tie it. Then he put on the left, tied it, and then tied the right [sandal].
R. Ashi said: I saw that R. Kahana was not particular.
Our Rabbis taught: When one puts on his shoes, he must put on the right first and then the left; when he removes [them], he must remove the left [first] and then the right. When one washes, he must [first] wash the right [hand, foot] and then the left. When one anoints [himself] with oil, he must anoint the right and then the left. But one who desires to anoint his whole body must anoint his head first, because it is the king of all the limbs
This actually has parallel in the matching Yerushalmi Shabbat 35b:
Facing these two Tannaitic traditions, Rav Yosef comments that "Now that it was taught thus, while R. Johanan said the reverse, he who acts in either way acts [well]." This is because you are either acting like the brayta's tradition or like Rabbi Yochanan's tradition.
Abaye raised a good objection: "But perhaps R. Johanan did not hear this Baraitha, but if he had heard it, he would have retracted? Or perhaps he heard it and held that the halachah is not as that Mishnah {/brayta}." In terms of the first half the objection, I don't think it is valid. Rav Shimon bar Bo could have repeated this brayta, which presumably he was acting in accordance with. And even if he had repeated this brayta, this is not a mere sevara upon which Rabbi Yochanan is acting, and instructing. Rather, it is a tradition that Rabbi Yochanan appears to have witnessed in action.
The second half of Abaye's objection bears more weight. "Or perhaps he heard it and held that the halachah is not as that Mishnah {/brayta}." Indeed, the sense of the Yerushalmi seems to be that he is overruling Rav Shimon bar Bo's inclination {and perhaps brayta} and stating that the halacha is otherwise. And if we only had the Yerushalmi rather than our Bavli, my sense is that we would have ruled to put the left shoe on first. On the other hand, we do not know that he was actually told over this brayta and that he then overruled it. He certainly has another tradition upon which he is acting.
And that is what we Babylonians can come away with. The brayta certainly reflects one Tannaitic tradition. And while Rabbi Yochanan's position fits in with a greater legal theory, it also is a conflicting Tannaitic tradition. Therefore, whatever one does, he is acting in accordance with some Tannaitic tradition. Rav Yosef is right.
Of course, this could mean that one should always act consistently in one way -- choose a Tannaitic tradition and stick with it. On the other hand, Rav Ashi, who is later, reports that Rav Kahana was not makpid to do it a specific way. This appears to be in line with Rav Yosef, though taking it perhaps further -- one need not pay heed to the order at all. One day it could be left first, the next right first. And the same for taking it off.
There is one other opinion in our gemara -- Mar the son of Ravina. To cite the gemara: "Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak said: A God-fearing person satisfies both views. And who is that? Mar, the son of Rabina. What did he do? He put on the right foot [sandal] but did not tie it. Then he put on the left, tied it, and then tied the right [sandal]."
How is this working? I would suggest {strongly, though -- this is correct} that what is happening here is a way of fulfilling both Rabbi Yochanan's instruction that the left goes on first and the brayta's instruction that the right goes on first. One can consider the shoe to be "on" at two distinct stages -- either once it is on, or once it is tied. Thus, put on the right sandal first but do not tie it. That way, the right shoe is on first. Then put on the left sandal. This completes this first stage, and so the brayta has been fulfilled. Next, tie the left sandal. Not because there is some preference for tying to be done on the left foot, but rather since this is now tied, the left shoe has been "put on" first. Then, tie the right sandal so that the right shoe has been "put on" second.
I have heard some incorrect explanations that because Rabbi Yochanan in Yerushalmi linked this to putting on tefillin, it is specifically the tying that is done first. But looking at the Yerushalmi, and even at his words in Bavli, Rabbi Yochanan is talking about putting on the sandal in the first place, not specifically the tying.
Also, the homiletic connection of tying the sandal to tying tefillin, and the same connection there to Avraham who refused the reward from the king of Sodom "even of a shoelace," I believe from Rabbi Akiva Eiger. I don't think this is the authentic derivation of this practice, but rather the one described above.
Do we rule like Mar son of Ravina? It would seem not, for the following two reasons: First, Rav Ashi is batrai, later and hilcheta ke-batrai. But I don't think that is the real reason.
Rather, the real reason is that Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak, even when reporting it, marginalized the position. He says it is the act of a certain yerei Shamayim, and then identifies who is intended by this title - Mar son of Ravina. Just like saying that something is appropriate only for someone whose tarato umanato -- Torah is his profession -- so too here we are saying that a particular person who is especially sensitive and has extreme fear of Heaven, and who is this? -- 0ne particular Amora rather than all the others -- wants to try to fulfill the obligation according to all the different positions. By casting it such, it seems to be a midat chassidut -- a positive thing to do, but by no means obligatory such that it should be encoded as halacha.
And indeed, Rav Ashi said in closing the sugya that Rav Kahana was not particular of the order, following Rav Yosef.
Nowadays, there is a similar urge to fulfill all possible shittot in our practice of Judaism, but this is not obligatory or expected, and indeed, with time the number of positions has multiplied, such that it is that much harder to do.
Thus, the sense is that this is a special middat chassidut that he adopted for himself, but which is not binding on everyone.
Looking at the poskim, we see that they do not encode this as halacha but rather omit this. This list of those who hold like Rav Kahana (here relying upon the Aruch haShulchan's writeup) include the Rif, Rambam, Rosh, Mordechai, and Smag, who all omit this law entirely.
However, the Tur and Shulchan Aruch list this.
In a gloss in Aruch haShulchan, we read that the reason no one held like Mar son of Ravina is that Rav Ashi is later and so the halacha is like him. Artzot HaChaim apparently says that Mar son of Ravina is later, but, as the gloss notes, this is a mistake and Mar son of Ravina is actually Mar the son of Ravana, who we know is earlier. As we see in Yevamot 22:
However, nowadays, some people take pains to fulfill the words of the Tur and Shulchan Aruch, but many, many do not. And they are on solid ground, having all the aforementioned Rishonim to rely upon. And further, as I argued, it is not just because of the technicality that Rav Ashi was later, such that it pays to take the recommendation of the Talmud for "the God-fearing individual." Rather, I believe that by labelling it as such, Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak intended to marginalize it and label it as something that was a middat chassidut, and not something to be codified as required for every individual. As such, the current practice (or rather non-practice) is not bad, and quite possibly something good.
T
ר' יוחנן אמר על אותה שיש בה מכה הוא נותן.
שמעון בר בא הוה משמש קומי ר' יוחנן והוה מושיט ליה סנדליה כהדא דתני.
לדרך הארץ כשהוא נועל נועל של ימין ואח"כ נועל של שמאל. וכשהוא חולץ חולץ של שמאל ואח"כ חולץ של ימין.
אמר ליה ר"י בבלייא לא תעבד כן שהראשונים לא היו עושין כן. אלא כשהוא נועל נועל של שמואל ואח"כ נועל של ימין. שלא תהא נראית של ימין פגומה.
הדא אמרת על אותה שיש בה מכה הוא נותן.
א"ל אין בבלייא דקמתיה עליה."Rabbi Yochanan says that upon the one which has the wound he places {the sandal}."
Shimon bar Bo was attending before Rabbi Yochanan, and he extended to him his sandal in accordance with that which was taught {in a brayta}:For the way of the land {=proper procedure is} when he puts on his shoe he puts on the right one and afterwards he puts on the left one. And when he removes it he removes the left one and afterwards he removes the right one.Rabbi Yochanan said to him: Babylonian! You should not do so. For the first ones {"Rishonim"} did not do so. Rather, when he dons the sandal he should don the left one and afterwards don the right one. So that the left one does not appear to be flawed.
{Shimon bar Bo said:} "This means that {in our Mishna} upon the foot which has the wound he places {the sandal}?"
He {=Rabbi Yochanan} said to him: Yes, Babylonian, you have arisen to it {the truth of the matter}.
Thus, we have more or less the same story as in the Bavli but with a bit of extra material in the narrative.
One extra point is that Rabbi Yochanan does not merely say that the left shoe goes on first like by tefillin. Rather, he says "You should not do so. For the first ones {"Rishonim"} did not do so." Who are these Rishonim? Well, Rabbi Yochanan was a first generation Amora, and has quasi-Tannaitic status {in that I can point to other instances in which he feels comfortable arguing on Mishnayot and braytot -- tanna hu ufalig, even though it doesn't say this outright like by Rav}. The "Rishonim" would be the Tannaim. Thus, he not only establishes what the practice should be, but he offers testimony as to the practice of the Tannaim.
Thus, we indeed have conflicting Tannaitic sources. We have this brayta upon which Rav Shimon bar Abba was presumbaly working off of {though it may just be an interjection in the Yerushalmi when it says כהדא דתני לדרך הארץ כשהוא נועל נועל של ימין ואח"כ נועל של שמאל}. And we have Rabbi Yochanan's testimony as to Tannaitic practice, which he works into a more general legal theory.
Turning back to the Bavli, we see this same incident with "Rav Shamen bar Abba" -- perhaps reflecting a certain pronunciation of the name Shimon bar Abba. It is the same fellow. They know of this because he is a Babylonian who went to Israel to study with Rabbi Yochanan. And thus they correctly extrapolate what Rabbi Yochanan appears to say explicitly in the Yerushalmi -- that he holds like Rav Huna about which foot to put the sandal on when he has a wound.
One extra point is that Rabbi Yochanan does not merely say that the left shoe goes on first like by tefillin. Rather, he says "You should not do so. For the first ones {"Rishonim"} did not do so." Who are these Rishonim? Well, Rabbi Yochanan was a first generation Amora, and has quasi-Tannaitic status {in that I can point to other instances in which he feels comfortable arguing on Mishnayot and braytot -- tanna hu ufalig, even though it doesn't say this outright like by Rav}. The "Rishonim" would be the Tannaim. Thus, he not only establishes what the practice should be, but he offers testimony as to the practice of the Tannaim.
Thus, we indeed have conflicting Tannaitic sources. We have this brayta upon which Rav Shimon bar Abba was presumbaly working off of {though it may just be an interjection in the Yerushalmi when it says כהדא דתני לדרך הארץ כשהוא נועל נועל של ימין ואח"כ נועל של שמאל}. And we have Rabbi Yochanan's testimony as to Tannaitic practice, which he works into a more general legal theory.
Turning back to the Bavli, we see this same incident with "Rav Shamen bar Abba" -- perhaps reflecting a certain pronunciation of the name Shimon bar Abba. It is the same fellow. They know of this because he is a Babylonian who went to Israel to study with Rabbi Yochanan. And thus they correctly extrapolate what Rabbi Yochanan appears to say explicitly in the Yerushalmi -- that he holds like Rav Huna about which foot to put the sandal on when he has a wound.
Facing these two Tannaitic traditions, Rav Yosef comments that "Now that it was taught thus, while R. Johanan said the reverse, he who acts in either way acts [well]." This is because you are either acting like the brayta's tradition or like Rabbi Yochanan's tradition.
Abaye raised a good objection: "But perhaps R. Johanan did not hear this Baraitha, but if he had heard it, he would have retracted? Or perhaps he heard it and held that the halachah is not as that Mishnah {/brayta}." In terms of the first half the objection, I don't think it is valid. Rav Shimon bar Bo could have repeated this brayta, which presumably he was acting in accordance with. And even if he had repeated this brayta, this is not a mere sevara upon which Rabbi Yochanan is acting, and instructing. Rather, it is a tradition that Rabbi Yochanan appears to have witnessed in action.
The second half of Abaye's objection bears more weight. "Or perhaps he heard it and held that the halachah is not as that Mishnah {/brayta}." Indeed, the sense of the Yerushalmi seems to be that he is overruling Rav Shimon bar Bo's inclination {and perhaps brayta} and stating that the halacha is otherwise. And if we only had the Yerushalmi rather than our Bavli, my sense is that we would have ruled to put the left shoe on first. On the other hand, we do not know that he was actually told over this brayta and that he then overruled it. He certainly has another tradition upon which he is acting.
And that is what we Babylonians can come away with. The brayta certainly reflects one Tannaitic tradition. And while Rabbi Yochanan's position fits in with a greater legal theory, it also is a conflicting Tannaitic tradition. Therefore, whatever one does, he is acting in accordance with some Tannaitic tradition. Rav Yosef is right.
Of course, this could mean that one should always act consistently in one way -- choose a Tannaitic tradition and stick with it. On the other hand, Rav Ashi, who is later, reports that Rav Kahana was not makpid to do it a specific way. This appears to be in line with Rav Yosef, though taking it perhaps further -- one need not pay heed to the order at all. One day it could be left first, the next right first. And the same for taking it off.
There is one other opinion in our gemara -- Mar the son of Ravina. To cite the gemara: "Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak said: A God-fearing person satisfies both views. And who is that? Mar, the son of Rabina. What did he do? He put on the right foot [sandal] but did not tie it. Then he put on the left, tied it, and then tied the right [sandal]."
How is this working? I would suggest {strongly, though -- this is correct} that what is happening here is a way of fulfilling both Rabbi Yochanan's instruction that the left goes on first and the brayta's instruction that the right goes on first. One can consider the shoe to be "on" at two distinct stages -- either once it is on, or once it is tied. Thus, put on the right sandal first but do not tie it. That way, the right shoe is on first. Then put on the left sandal. This completes this first stage, and so the brayta has been fulfilled. Next, tie the left sandal. Not because there is some preference for tying to be done on the left foot, but rather since this is now tied, the left shoe has been "put on" first. Then, tie the right sandal so that the right shoe has been "put on" second.
I have heard some incorrect explanations that because Rabbi Yochanan in Yerushalmi linked this to putting on tefillin, it is specifically the tying that is done first. But looking at the Yerushalmi, and even at his words in Bavli, Rabbi Yochanan is talking about putting on the sandal in the first place, not specifically the tying.
Also, the homiletic connection of tying the sandal to tying tefillin, and the same connection there to Avraham who refused the reward from the king of Sodom "even of a shoelace," I believe from Rabbi Akiva Eiger. I don't think this is the authentic derivation of this practice, but rather the one described above.
Do we rule like Mar son of Ravina? It would seem not, for the following two reasons: First, Rav Ashi is batrai, later and hilcheta ke-batrai. But I don't think that is the real reason.
Rather, the real reason is that Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak, even when reporting it, marginalized the position. He says it is the act of a certain yerei Shamayim, and then identifies who is intended by this title - Mar son of Ravina. Just like saying that something is appropriate only for someone whose tarato umanato -- Torah is his profession -- so too here we are saying that a particular person who is especially sensitive and has extreme fear of Heaven, and who is this? -- 0ne particular Amora rather than all the others -- wants to try to fulfill the obligation according to all the different positions. By casting it such, it seems to be a midat chassidut -- a positive thing to do, but by no means obligatory such that it should be encoded as halacha.
And indeed, Rav Ashi said in closing the sugya that Rav Kahana was not particular of the order, following Rav Yosef.
Nowadays, there is a similar urge to fulfill all possible shittot in our practice of Judaism, but this is not obligatory or expected, and indeed, with time the number of positions has multiplied, such that it is that much harder to do.
Thus, the sense is that this is a special middat chassidut that he adopted for himself, but which is not binding on everyone.
Looking at the poskim, we see that they do not encode this as halacha but rather omit this. This list of those who hold like Rav Kahana (here relying upon the Aruch haShulchan's writeup) include the Rif, Rambam, Rosh, Mordechai, and Smag, who all omit this law entirely.
However, the Tur and Shulchan Aruch list this.
In a gloss in Aruch haShulchan, we read that the reason no one held like Mar son of Ravina is that Rav Ashi is later and so the halacha is like him. Artzot HaChaim apparently says that Mar son of Ravina is later, but, as the gloss notes, this is a mistake and Mar son of Ravina is actually Mar the son of Ravana, who we know is earlier. As we see in Yevamot 22:
"Mar the son of Rabana has not signed them".Regardless, Tur and Shulchan Aruch worried for this opinion, for Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak said that a God-fearing person fulfills both positions, etc., and it is upon us to fulfill the words of the Tur and Shulchan Aruch. So ends my summary of Aruch haShulchan.
However, nowadays, some people take pains to fulfill the words of the Tur and Shulchan Aruch, but many, many do not. And they are on solid ground, having all the aforementioned Rishonim to rely upon. And further, as I argued, it is not just because of the technicality that Rav Ashi was later, such that it pays to take the recommendation of the Talmud for "the God-fearing individual." Rather, I believe that by labelling it as such, Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak intended to marginalize it and label it as something that was a middat chassidut, and not something to be codified as required for every individual. As such, the current practice (or rather non-practice) is not bad, and quite possibly something good.
T
2 comments:
Could there have been multiple rabbis named Ravina?
yes. there certainly were at least two (an uncle and his nephew), both of whom were involved in the redaction of the Talmud.
Post a Comment