ורבי יוסי אוסר
And Rabbi Yosei prohibits going out into the public domain with the wooden leg, since he does not consider it to have the legal status of a shoe.
ואם יש לו בית קיבול כתיתין טמא
And if the wooden leg has a receptacle for pads, a concave space at the top of the leg into which pads are placed to cushion the amputated leg, it assumes the status of a wooden vessel and can become ritually impure.
סמוכות שלו טמאין מדרס ויוצאין בהן בשבת ונכנסין בהן בעזרה
And his supports, which are shoes that one who had both of his feet amputated places on his knees in order to walk on his knees, if a zav wears them, they are subject to ritual impurity imparted by treading. A zav is a primary source of ritual impurity. If he touches a vessel it assumes first-degree ritual impurity status. However, vessels on which he treads, sits, lies, or leans become primary sources of ritual impurity, provided they are designated for that purpose. These supports are vessels designated for treading. And one may go out with them into the public domain on Shabbat since they have the legal status of shoes. And one may enter the Temple courtyard with them. Although, generally, wearing shoes in the Temple courtyard is prohibited, in this regard, the supports do not have the legal status of shoes.
כסא וסמוכות שלו טמאין מדרס ואין יוצאין בהן בשבת ואין נכנסין בהן בעזרה
However, if one who is crippled to the extent that he cannot walk at all sits on a chair that is attached to him, places supports on his hands, and propels himself along with his hands, his chair and supports are subject to ritual impurity imparted by treading. And one may not go out with them on Shabbat, and one may not enter the Temple courtyard with them.
לוקטמין טהורין ואין יוצאין בהן:
Loketamin, which will be explained in the Gemara, are ritually pure in the sense that they cannot become ritually impure because they are not vessels, and one may not go out with them on Shabbat.
גמ׳ אמר ליה רבא לרב נחמן היכי תנן אמר ליה לא ידענא הילכתא מאי אמר ליה לא ידענא
GEMARA: Rava said to Rav Naḥman: How did we learn the dispute in our mishna? Does Rabbi Meir rule that the amputee may go out with a wooden leg and foot and Rabbi Yosei prohibits him from doing so? Or is it Rabbi Meir who prohibited him from doing so, and Rabbi Yosei’s opinion is the lenient one? Rav Naḥman said to him: I don’t know. And Rava asked: What is the halakha in this matter? Rav Naḥman said to him: I don’t know.
איתמר אמר שמואל אין הקיטע וכן אמר רב הונא אין הקיטע אמר רב יוסף הואיל ואמר שמואל אין הקיטע ואמר רב הונא אין הקיטע אנן נמי ניתני אין הקיטע
It was stated: Shmuel said that the correct reading of the mishna is: An amputee may not go out, and Rabbi Yosei permits him to do so. And, likewise, Rav Huna said that the correct reading of the mishna is: An amputee may not. Rav Yosef said: Since Shmuel said that the correct reading of the mishna is: An amputee may not, and Rav Huna said: An amputee may not, we will also learn the mishna: An amputee may not.
מתקיף לה רבא בר שירא לא שמיע להו הא דמתני ליה רב חנן בר רבא לחייא בר רב קמיה דרב בקיטונא דבי רב אין הקיטע יוצא בקב שלו דברי רבי מאיר ורבי יוסי מתיר ומחוי ליה רב איפוך אמר רב נחמן בר יצחק וסימנא סמך סמך
Rava bar Shira strongly objects to this: And did they not hear that Rav Ḥanan bar Rava taught the mishna to Ḥiyya bar Rav before Rav in a small room [kituna] in the school of Rav: An amputee may not go out on Shabbat with his wooden leg; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. And Rabbi Yosei permits going out with it. And Rav signaled him with a hand gesture to reverse the opinions, Rabbi Meir permits going out and Rabbi Yosei prohibits doing so. Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: And the mnemonic to remember which tanna permits and which tanna prohibits is samekh samekh. The letter samekh appears both in the name Yosei and in the Hebrew word for prohibits [oser]. In that way, one remembers that Rabbi Yosei is the one who prohibits it.
ואף שמואל הדר ביה דתנן חלצה בסנדל שאינו שלו בסנדל של עץ או של שמאל בימין חליצה כשרה
The Gemara comments: And even Shmuel, who said that the correct reading of the mishna is: An amputee may not, and Rabbi Yosei permits it, reversed his opinion. As we learned in a mishna: The ḥalitza ceremony, which frees a childless widow from the obligation to enter into levirate marriage with her brother-in-law, involves the widow removing her brother-in-law’s sandal from his foot. If she removed a sandal that is not his, or a wooden sandal, or the sandal of the left foot that was on his right foot, the ḥalitza is valid.
ואמרינן מאן תנא אמר שמואל רבי מאיר היא דתנן הקיטע יוצא בקב שלו דברי רבי מאיר רבי יוסי אוסר
And we said: Who is the tanna who holds that a wooden sandal is considered a shoe for this purpose? Shmuel said: It is Rabbi Meir, as we learned in a mishna: An amputee may go out with his wooden leg, this is the statement of Rabbi Meir, and Rabbi Yosei prohibits doing so. Ultimately, Shmuel accepted Rav’s reading of the mishna.
ואף רב הונא הדר ביה דתניא סנדל של סיידין טמא מדרס ואשה חולצת בו ויוצאין בו בשבת דברי רבי עקיבא ולא הודו לו
And Rav Huna also reversed his opinion, as it was taught in a baraita: With regard to a plasterers’ sandal worn by those who work with lime and would cover their leather shoes with a shoe woven from straw or reeds so that the leather shoes would not get ruined by the lime. If the plasterer is a zav and walks with his shoes covered, the shoe covering is subject to ritual impurity imparted by treading, as the legal status of that sandal is that of a shoe. A woman may perform ḥalitza with it, and one may go out with it on Shabbat; this is the statement of Rabbi Akiva. And the Rabbis did not agree with him.
והתניא הודו לו אמר רב הונא מאן הודו לו רבי מאיר ומאן לא הודו לו רבי יוסי
The Gemara asks: Wasn’t it taught in a baraita that they agreed with him? Rav Huna said in resolution of this apparent contradiction: Who is the Sage whose opinion is referred to in the phrase: They agreed with him? It is Rabbi Meir. And who is the Sage whose opinion is referred to in the phrase: They did not agree with him? It is Rabbi Yosei. Even Rav Huna accepted Rav’s reading of the mishna that Rabbi Yosei prohibits going out with a wooden leg.
(אמר רב יוסף) מאן לא הודו לו רבי יוחנן בן נורי דתנן כורת של קש ושפופרת של קנים רבי עקיבא מטמא ורבי יוחנן בן נורי מטהר
Rav Yosef said: Who is the Sage whose opinion is referred to in the phrase: They did not agree with Rabbi Akiva? It is Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri. As we learned in a mishna: A receptacle made of straw and a tube made of reeds, Rabbi Akiva deems these vessels capable of becoming ritually impure, and Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri deems them pure, i.e., incapable of becoming ritually impure because they are not vessels. According to Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri, straw objects are not considered vessels fit for use.
אמר מר סנדל של סיידין טמא מדרס הא לאו להילוכא עבדי אמר רב אחא בר רב עולא שכן הסייד מטייל בו עד שמגיע לביתו:
It was taught in a baraita that the Master said: A plasterers’ sandal is subject to ritual impurity imparted by treading. The Gemara asks: How could that be? These sandals are not made for walking. Rav Aḥa bar Rav Ulla said: They are used for walking, as, at times, the plasterer walks in them until he reaches his house.
ואם יש לו בית קיבול כתיתין טמא: אמר אביי טמא טומאת מת ואין טמא מדרס רבא אמר אף טמא מדרס
We learned in the mishna: And if the wooden leg has a receptacle for pads, it is capable of becoming ritually impure. Abaye said: It is subject to ritual impurity due to contact with ritual impurity imparted by a corpse, and it is not subject to ritual impurity imparted by treading. If a zav uses a wooden leg it merely assumes first-degree ritual impurity status, since he cannot lean all his weight on it. Rava said: The artificial foot is even subject to ritual impurity imparted by treading.
אמר רבא מנא אמינא לה דתנן עגלה של קטן טמאה מדרס ואביי אמר התם סמיך עילויה הכא לא סמיך עילויה
Rava said: From where do I derive to say this halakha? As we learned in a mishna: The wagon of a small child utilized to teach him to walk (Tosafot) is subject to ritual impurity imparted by treading, since its purpose is to lean on it. And Abaye said: The two cases are not comparable. There, in the case of the wagon, he leans all his weight on it; here, in the case of the wooden leg, he does not lean all his weight on it.
אמר אביי מנא אמינא לה דתניא מקל של זקנים טהור מכלום
Abaye said: From where do I derive to say this halakha? As it was taught in a baraita: A walking stick, typically used by the elderly, is pure, i.e., incapable of becoming ritually impure from any form of ritual impurity. Apparently, an object upon which one does not lean all his weight is not subject to ritual impurity imparted by treading.
And how does Rava respond to this proof? He says that there is a distinction between the cases: There, in the case of a walking stick used by the elderly,