Shabbat

it is a 'utensil' for its own function, but here it is not a 'utensil' for its own function. Now, did R. Johanan say thus?  Surely R. Johanan said, The halachah is as an anonymous Mishnah,  and we learnt: If one of the ears of a sandal is broken and he repairs it, it [the sandal] is unclean as midras.  (If the second is broken [too] and he repairs it, it is clean in that it is not defiled as midras,  but it is unclean as that touched by midras.)  Does not [this mean that] there is no difference whether it is the inner or the outer?  — No, [it refers] only [to] the inner. Then what if the outer [is broken]? [Would it be] clean! If so, instead of teaching, If the second is broken [too] and he repairs it, it is clean in that it is not defiled as midras, but it is unclean as that touched by midras, let him [the Tanna] draw a distinction in that very matter and teach: When is that? if the inner is broken; but [if] the outer [is broken] it is clean? — Said R. Isaac b. Joseph: Let our Mishnah  treat of a sandal which has four ears and four strappings, so as not to overthrow  the words of R. Johanan. When Rabin came,  he said: R. Hanan b. Abba said in Rab's name: The halachah is as R. Judah; while R. Johanan said: The halachah is not as R. Judah. But did R. Johanan say thus: surely since R. Johanan explained [the law] on the basis of R. Judah's view, it follows that he agrees with R. Judah? — There is [a controversy of] amoraim as to R. Johanan' s opinion. We learnt elsewhere: As for all utensils belonging to private people, their standards are [holes as large] as pomegranates.  Hezekiah asked: What if it [a utensil] receives a hole [large enough] for an olive to fall through, and he [the owner] closes it, then it receives another hole  [large enough] for an olive to fall through, and he closes it, [and so on] until it is made large enough for a pomegranate to fall through? Said R. Johanan to him, You have taught us: If one of the ears of a sandal is broken and he repairs it, it [the sandal] is unclean as midras; if the second is broken and he repairs it, it is clean in that it is not defiled as midras, but it is unclean as that touched by midras. Now we asked you: Why is it different [when] the first [is broken], — because the second is sound? But [when] the second [too] is broken, the first is [already] repaired? And you answered us: A new entity  has arrived hither;  here too, a new entity has arrived hither! [Thereupon] he [Hezekiah] exclaimed concerning him, This one is not the son of man!  Others say, Such a one is indeed the son of man!  R. Zera said in Raba b. Zimuna's name: If the earlier [scholars] were sons of angels, we are sons of men; and if the earlier [scholars] were sons of men, we are like asses, and not [even] like asses of R. Hanina b. Dosa and R. Phinehas b. Jair,  but like other asses. PITCHERS OF WINE OR OIL. But that is obvious? — This is necessary only where they have two spouts;  you might say, He [the owner] may completely disregard one:  therefore he [the Tanna] informs us [that we do not fear this]. THE MEAT POT. But that is obvious? — This is necessary only where it has a [screwed-in] stopper: you might say, He [the owner] may completely abandon [it]:  hence he informs us [that we do not fear this]. R. ELIEZER B. JACOB SAID: ONE MAY TIE, etc. But that is obvious? This is necessary only where there are two cords: you might say,