Shabbos 112 – שבת קיב

Why was the muktza sandal allowed to be moved in a Karmelis?

Chizkiya expressed amazement at Rebbi Yochanan’s application of ‘Panim Chadashos’ to the case of the keli.  Wasn’t he simply applying the concept that Chizkiya had himself taught?


One thought on “Shabbos 112 – שבת קיב

  1. Once he was allowed to put in a reed to hold it together it became useful once again.

    To answer the second question we can first attempt to answer Tosafos’ Kasha. Tosafos asks why didn’t Rebbe Yochanan ask his question to his Rebbe when they were learning about the bed that came apart and was replaced piece by piece as they came off.

    We can say to answer this that in the case of the bed it was simpler to understand that it would be called a Panim Chadashos, since the actual bed came apart. By the sandal, on the other hand, the original sandal is still here, it merely became unusable.

    In our case, Chizkiya wonders about a pot that was patched, a Kezayis at a time. At first glance, we should say that being that the whole problem with a Keli having a hole larger than a pomegranate is that the contents will fall through. Therefore, it should be enough if you manage through whatever means to keep the contents from falling through.

    In the case of the sandal, we see that although the Keli remained we say it has a new face, since it was considered Battul when the handles were gone. This is what Rebbe Yochanan was alluding to.

    When Chizkiya answered Rebbe Yochanan while they were discussing the sandal, he was coming off the case of the bed, and he considered the handles of the sandal as an essential part of the sandal. Now, when he heard Rebbe Yochanan compare the sandal to the Keli, he realized what Rebbe Yochanan understood from his words back then — and agreed to it.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *