דלמילתיה מנא הוא אבל הכא למילתיה לאו מנא הוא

it is fit as a utensil for its usual purpose, i.e., it can be used as footwear. However, here it is not fit as a utensil for its usual purpose.

ומי אמר רבי יוחנן הכי והאמר רבי יוחנן הלכה כסתם משנה ותנן סנדל שנפסקה אחת מאזניו ותיקנה טמא מדרס (נפסקה שניה ותיקנה טהור מלטמא מדרס אבל טמא מגע מדרס) מאי לאו לא שנא פנימית ולא שנא חיצונה

The Gemara asks: Did Rabbi Yoḥanan in fact say that the halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda, who says that if the outer strap broke the sandal becomes pure? Didn’t Rabbi Yoḥanan say: The halakha is in accordance with an unattributed mishna? And we learned in a mishna: A sandal that became ritually impure with impurity imparted by the treading of a zav, and one of its ears broke and he repaired it, this sandal is still impure with ritual impurity imparted by treading, since a broken ear does not render the sandal useless and it remains a utensil. If the second ear broke and he repaired it, it is ritually pure in the sense that it no longer renders other objects ritually impure in the same way a vessel that became a primary source of ritual impurity by means of impurity imparted by treading does, since when both ears tear it is no longer a utensil. However, it is itself ritually impure with ritual impurity imparted by treading due to contact with a vessel that is impure, i.e., contact with itself. Since the sandal now has only one torn ear, it is still considered a utensil which is capable of contracting impurity, and it is as if it contracted impurity from itself in its previous state. Is this statement not an indication that there is no difference whether it was the inner strap or the outer strap that broke, as no single ear that breaks terminates the sandal’s use? This contradicts Rabbi Yoḥanan’s statement.

לא פנימית דוקא אבל חיצונה מאי טהור אי הכי אדתני נפסקה שניה ותיקנה טהור מן המדרס אבל טמא מגע מדרס ניפלוג בדידה במה דברים אמורים שנפסקה פנימית אבל חיצונה טהור אמר רב יצחק בן יוסף תהא משנתנו בסנדל שיש לו ארבע אזנים וארבע תרסיותים שלא לשבור דבריו של רבי יוחנן

The Gemara rejects this: No, this mishna is referring specifically to the inner strap. When the inner strap breaks, even Rabbi Yehuda concedes that the sandal remains ritually impure. The Gemara asks: However, if the outer strap breaks, what is the halakha? Is it that the sandal is pure? If so, instead of teaching: If the second ear broke and he repaired it, it is ritually pure in the sense that it no longer renders other objects ritually impure as a vessel that became a primary source of ritual impurity by means of impurity imparted by treading; however, it is itself ritually impure due to contact with a vessel that is impure due to contact with an object that became ritually impure with impurity imparted by treading, let him make a distinction within the case itself: In what case was this statement said? In a case where the inner strap breaks. However, if the outer strap breaks, the sandal becomes ritually pure. Rav Yitzḥak ben Yosef said: Let our mishna be interpreted as referring to a sandal that has four ears and four straps, and it can be explained that when it says that the second one broke, it was referring to the second outer one. It is worthwhile to interpret it this way so as not to break, i.e., contradict, Rabbi Yoḥanan’s statement.

כי אתא רבין אמר רב חנן בר אבא אמר רב הלכה כרבי יהודה ורבי יוחנן אמר אין הלכה כרבי יהודה ומי אמר רבי יוחנן הכי והא מדמתרץ רבי יוחנן אליבא דרבי יהודה שמע מינה כרבי יהודה סבירא ליה אמוראי נינהו ואליבא דרבי יוחנן

When Ravin came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he related that Rav Ḥanan bar Abba said that Rav said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda. And Rabbi Yoḥanan said: The halakha is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda. The Gemara asks: And did Rabbi Yoḥanan actually say this? From the fact that Rabbi Yoḥanan provided an explanation in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, conclude from it that he holds that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda. The Gemara answers: They are different amora’im who made their statements in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan.

תנן התם כל כלי בעלי בתים שיעורן כרמונים בעי (רבי) חזקיה ניקב כמוציא זית וסתמו וחזר וניקב כמוציא זית וסתמו עד שהשלימו למוציא רימון מהו

The Gemara cites another discussion related to the previous halakha. We learned there in a mishna in tractate Kelim: All ritually impure wooden utensils belonging to ordinary homeowners become pure through breaking the utensil if they have holes the size of pomegranates. Ḥizkiya asked: What is the halakha when a utensil was perforated with a hole large enough for an olive to emerge, and he sealed it, and then it was perforated again with a hole large enough for an olive to emerge, and he sealed it, and this went on until the total area of all the holes completed a space large enough for a pomegranate to emerge? In other words, do we say that because the sum of the areas of all the holes adds up to the size of a pomegranate, the utensil is pure, or do we say that since the previous hole was filled before the next hole was formed, the utensil remains ritually impure?

אמר ליה רבי יוחנן רבי שנית לנו סנדל שנפסקה אחת מאזניו ותיקנה טמא מדרס נפסקה שניה ותיקנה טהור מן המדרס אבל טמא מגע מדרס ואמרינן לך מאי שנא ראשונה דהא קיימא שניה שניה נמי מתקנה ראשונה

Rabbi Yoḥanan, his student, said to him: Master, you taught us that with regard to a sandal that became ritually impure by impurity imparted by the treading of a zav, and one of its ears broke and he repaired it,this sandal remains ritually impure with impurity imparted by treading. If the second ear broke and he repaired it, the sandal is ritually pure in the sense that it no longer renders other objects ritually impure in the same way a vessel that became a primary source of ritual impurity by means of impurity imparted by treading does. However, it is itself ritually impure with ritual impurity imparted by treading due to contact with a vessel that is impure, i.e., contact with itself. And we said to you: What is different when the first ear breaks that the sandal remains impure? It is because the second one is intact. So too, when the second ear breaks, the first one is repaired, and there is only one torn ear.

ואמרת לן עליה פנים חדשות באו לכאן הכא נמי פנים חדשות באו לכאן

And you said to us in this regard that the reason the sandal is pure is because a new face has arrived here. The legal status of the sandal with the two repaired ears is not that of the original sandal; it is a new sandal. Here too, with regard to a utensil that was perforated several times and sealed each time, let us say with regard to the sandal as well that a new face has arrived here, and it is ritually pure because the repaired sandal is a new entity and not the original sandal.

קרי עליה לית דין בר אינש איכא דאמרי כגון דין בר אינש אמר רבי זירא אמר רבא בר זימונא אם ראשונים בני מלאכים אנו בני אנשים ואם ראשונים בני אנשים אנו כחמורים ולא כחמורו של רבי חנינא בן דוסא ושל רבי פנחס בן יאיר אלא כשאר חמורים:

Ḥizkiya was so impressed by Rabbi Yoḥanan’s comment that he exclaimed about him: This is not a human being, but an angel. Some say that he said: This is an ideal human being. On a similar note, Rabbi Zeira said that Rava bar Zimuna said: If the early generations are characterized as sons of angels, we are the sons of men. And if the early generations are characterized as the sons of men, we are akin to donkeys. And I do not mean that we are akin to either the donkey of Rabbi Ḥanina ben Dosa or the donkey of Rabbi Pinḥas ben Yair, who were both extraordinarily intelligent donkeys; rather, we are akin to other typical donkeys.

ונודות יין ושמן: פשיטא לא צריכא דאית ליה תרתי אוני מהו דתימא חדא מינייהו בטולי מבטל לה קא משמע לן:

And we learned in the mishna: It is permitted to tie the spouts of wine or oil jugs. The Gemara says: This is obvious. The Gemara explains: It is only necessary to teach this halakha in a case where it, the jug, has two ears, i.e., two spouts. Lest you say: One of them, he voids it consequently defining the knot on that opening permanent and therefore prohibited, it teaches us that this is not the case.

קדירה של בשר: פשיטא לא צריכא דאית לה שלאכא מהו דתימא בטולי מבטל לה קא משמע לן:

We also learned in the mishna that it is even permitted to tie a garment to cover a pot of meat. The Gemara says: This is obvious. The Gemara explains: It is only necessary to teach this halakha a case where it has a string with which one could open a flap and empty the food. Lest you say that since a single opening usually suffices he voids the knot with which he ties the garment, it teaches us that this is not the case.

רבי אליעזר בן יעקב אומר קושרה כו׳: פשיטא לא צריכא דאית לה תרתי איסרי מהו דתימא

We also learned in the mishna that Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov says: One may tie a rope across an entrance before an animal so that it will not go out. The Gemara says: This is obvious. The Gemara explains: It is only necessary to teach this halakha in a case where the entrance has two ropes. Lest you say