SHOWING PREFERENCE TO ONE FOOT
(Mishnah): One may not go out with [only] one sandal unless there is a wound on his foot [otherwise, people might suspect that he is carrying the other shoe under his garment; alternatively, perhaps people will laugh at him, and he will take off the shoe and carry it].
Question: If there is a wound on his foot, he may wear one shoe - on which foot does he wear it?
Answer #1 (Rav Huna): He wears it on the wounded foot.
Inference: He holds that sandals are [normally] worn to avoid pain. (The bare foot shows that he has hard feet and is not pained by walking on bumpy surfaces, people will realize that the covered foot is wounded, they will not suspect him; alternatively, he will bear the ridicule and keep the shoe on to avoid pain.)
Answer #2 (Chiya bar Rav): He wears it on the healthy foot.
Inference: He holds that sandals are worn for comfort. (People realize that he would like to wear sandals on both feet, but the wound prevents him, they will not suspect him; alternatively, they will not laugh at him because they see the wound.)
An episode shows that R. Yochanan holds like Rav Huna:
R. Shemen bar Aba was bringing R. Yochanan's shoes to him to wear - he [first] gave to him the right shoe (R. Yochanan always donned the left shoe first).
R. Yochanan: You make it appear that it (my right foot) is wounded [hence I should put a shoe only on it]!
Rejection: Perhaps he holds like R. Chiya - he means, you make it appear that my left foot is wounded.
R. Yochanan is consistent with what he taught elsewhere:
Just like we put Tefilin on the left hand, we put the left shoe on first [to show preference for the left].
Question (Beraisa): One puts on the right shoe before the left.
(Rav Yosef): Since the Beraisa and R. Yochanan say differently, one may conduct like either of them. (Tosfos - they do not argue - one may show preference for the left, like the Torah does regarding Tefilin, or for the right, like it does regarding Chalitzah and blood of Asham Metzora.)
Objection: (Abaye): Perhaps they argue - R. Yochanan never heard the Beraisa, had he heard it he would have retracted!
Alternatively, perhaps he heard it, but he knew that the Halachah does not follow it!
(Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak): One who fears Shamayim will fulfill both opinions - Mar brei d'Ravina is such a person.
Question: How does one fulfill both opinions?
Answer: One puts on the right shoe, then the left, then ties the left, then ties the right.
Rav Ashi: I saw that Rav Kahana was not particular [about which shoe he put on first].
(Beraisa): One puts on the right shoe before the left; when removing them, he removes the left shoe first.
One washes or anoints the right [hand] before the left;
When washing the whole body, one should wash the head first, for it is the king over all the limbs.
GOING OUT WITH TEFILIN
(Mishnah): One may not go out with Tefilin.
Version #1 (Rav Safra): This is not only according to the opinion that [the Mitzvah to wear] Tefilin does not apply on Shabbos;
Rather, even the opinion that it applies on Shabbos forbids, lest he will [remove them to go to the bathroom and] carry them in Reshus ha'Rabim.
Version #2 (Seifa): If one went out with any of these, he is exempt.
(Rav Safra): This is not only according to the opinion that Tefilin applies on Shabbos - rather, even the opinion that it does not apply on Shabbos exempts.
Question: What is the reason?
Answer: This is considered wearing (it is not considered carrying).
A KEMI'A OF A MUMCHEH IS PERMITTED
(Mishnah): One may not go out with a Kemi'a that is not [Muchzak to heal, i.e.] from a Mumcheh.
(Rav Papa): We do not require the Kemi'a and its author to be Mumchim - it suffices if the author is Mumcheh, even if the Kemi'a is not.
Support: The Mishnah forbids 'A Kemi'a that is not from a Mumcheh', it does not say 'that is not Mumcheh'.
(Beraisa #1): A Kemi'a is Mumcheh if it healed three times - this applies equally to a Kemi'a of writing or of herbs, and whether or not the Choleh was dangerously sick.
Not only is it permitted for one who has had epileptic fits, it is permitted even to prevent them (for one from a family afflicted by this).
One may tie and untie the Kemi'a [around the herbs or writing] even in Reshus ha'Rabim;
One may not tie it on a [leg] bracelet or ring and wear it in Reshus ha'Rabim, on account of Mar'is ha'Ayin (it looks like he wears it for a Tachshit)
Version #1 (Rashi) Contradiction (Beraisa #2): A Kemi'a is Mumcheh if it healed three people (i.e. with different maladies - Beraisa #1 does not require this).
Version #2 (Tosfos) Contradiction (Beraisa #2): A Kemi'a is Mumcheh if [three Kemi'im with] its text healed three people at the same time. (end of Version #2)
Answer: Beraisa #2 discusses to Machzik the author (to be Mumcheh), Beraisa #1 discusses Hachzakas Kemi'a. (Rashi - an author is Mumcheh if it is Muchzak that any Kemi'a he writes will heal; Tosfos - he is Mumcheh for a text if it is Muchzak that when he writes it, it heals. Rashi, according to Tosfos ha'Rosh - if Reuven wrote a Kemi'a and it healed Shimon three times, the text is Mumcheh only if Reuven writes it; if it healed three people, or if three doctors wrote this text and each of them healed Shimon, it is Mumcheh no matter who writes it.)
(Rav Papa): It is obvious to me that if Reuven wrote three [different] Kemi'im for three people (with different maladies - Rashi; Tosfos - three identical Kemi'im for one person) and each healed three times, he and the Kemi'im are [Muchzakim to be] Mumchim;
If he wrote three Kemi'im for three people and each healed once, he is Mumcheh, the Kemi'im are not;
If he wrote one Kemi'a and it healed three people, it is Mumcheh, he is not;
Question (Rav Papa): If he wrote three Kemi'im and all healed one person, what is the law?
Surely, the Kemi'a is not Mumcheh - is the author Mumcheh?
Perhaps he is Mumcheh because he healed three times;
Or, perhaps he is not Mumcheh, all worked because the patient has a Mazel (angel appointed over his illnesses) to be cured through writing!
This question is not resolved.
KEDUSHAH OF KEMI'IM
Question: Does a Kemi'a have Kedushah?
Question: Regarding what do we ask?
Answer #1: We ask whether or not one may save it from a fire [on Shabbos].
Rejection: A Mishnah teaches this - [written] Berachos and Kemi'im, even though they have letters [of Hash-m's name] and verses from many Parshiyos, they may not be saved from a fire [by taking them to a Chatzer lacking an Eiruv], one leaves them to be burned.
Answer #2: We ask whether they need Genizah (burial - or, perhaps one may dispose of them in any way).
Rejection: A Beraisa teaches this - if Hash-m's name was written on the handle of a Kli or the leg of a bed, one cuts off the part containing His name and buries it (but the rest of the Kli is permitted - surely, the same applies to Kemi'im).
Answer #3: We ask whether or not one may enter a Beis ha'Kisei with it - this is permitted only if it has no Kedushah.
Answer (Mishnah): One may not go out with a Kemi'a that is not from a Mumcheh.
Inference: One may go out with a Kemi'a from a Mumcheh.
If one may not enter a Beis ha'Kisei with it, we should forbid, lest one will remove them to enter a Beis ha'Kisei and carry them four Amos in Reshus ha'Rabim (we learned that even if Tefilin apply on Shabbos, one may not go out with them for this reason)!
Objection #1: [Perhaps] only a [Mumcheh] Kemi'a of herbs is permitted (but one of writing is forbidden for this reason)!
Rejection (Beraisa): The laws of a Kemi'a of herbs and one of writing are the same.
Objection #2: [Perhaps] a [Mumcheh] Kemi'a is permitted only for a dangerously sick person!
Rejection (Beraisa): The law of a Kemi'a is the same whether or not the Choleh is dangerously sick.
Objection #3: Since a [Mumcheh] Kemi'a heals, one may even carry it in his hand (therefore, even if he will remove it to enter a Beis ha'Kisei, he will not transgress)!
Rejection (Beraisa - R. Oshaya): One may not walk four Amos with a Kemi'a in his hand.