Shabbat

But one may not [send] a nail-studded sandal or an unsewn shoe [on Festivals]?  — What is the reason of the Sabbath?  Because there is a gathering [of people]. So on Festivals too there is a gathering. But there is a gathering on a public fast day:  let it be forbidden [then too]? — The incident happened on a day of assembly when there is an interdict [against work]; but here it is [a day of] assembly when it is permitted [to work]. And even according to R. Hanina b. Akiba who maintained, They enacted a prohibition only in respect of the Jordan and a ship, just as the incident that occurred:  that applies only to the Jordan, which differs from other rivers;  but Festivals and the Sabbath are alike, for we learnt: There is no difference between Festivals and the Sabbath save in respect of food consumption.  Rab Judah said in Samuel's name: They learnt this only [where the nails are] to strengthen [the sandal], but where they are ornamental, it is permitted.  And how many [nails] constitute an ornament? — R. Johanan said: Five on each; R. Hanina maintained: Seven on each  and one on [each of] the straps; according to R. Hanina, there are three on each side  and one in the strapping. An objection is raised: For an inclining sandal  one inserts seven [nails]; this is R. Nathan's view. But Rabbi permits thirteen.  As for R. Hanina, It Is well: he rules as R. Nathan. But whose view does R. Johanan state? — He rules as R. Nehorai. For it was taught, R. Nehorai said: Five are permitted, but seven are forbidden. Efah said to Rabbah b. Bar Hanah: You, as disciples of R. Johanan, should act as R. Johanan; but we will act as R. Hanina. R. Huna asked R. Ashi: What of five [nails]? — Even seven are permitted, he answered him. What of nine? Even eight are forbidden, was his reply. A certain shoe-maker asked R. Ammi: What if it is sewn from within?  It is permitted, replied he, but I do not know what is the reason.  Said R. Ashi, And does not the Master know what is the reason?  Since it was sewn from within, it becomes a shoe:  the Rabbis enacted a decree in respect to a sandal, but in respect of a shoe they did not enact any decree. R. Abba b. Zabda asked R. Abba b. Abina: What if he arranged them [the nails] zigzag-shape?  — It is permitted, he answered him. It was stated likewise: R. Jose b. R. Hanina said: If they are arranged zigzag-shape, it is permitted. R. Shesheth said: If the whole of it [the sole] is covered with nails [underneath] so that the ground should not wear it away. it is permitted. It was taught in accordance with R. Shesheth, A man may not go out wearing a nail-studded sandal, nor may he stroll [in it] from house to house,  and even from bed to bed. But it may be handled in order to cover a utensil or support the legs of a bed therewith;  but R. Eleazar b. R. Simeon forbids this.  If most of its nails are fallen out, but four or five are left, it is permitted; while Rabbi permits it up to seven. If one covers it with leather underneath and drives nails into it on top, it is permitted.  If one arranges them [the nails] zigzag-fashion,  or flattens [them] out, or points [them],  or covers the whole of it with nails so that the ground should not wear it out, it is permitted. Now, this is self-contradictory: You say, if most of the nails are fallen out, [implying], even if many are left [it may be worn]; then it is taught, only four or five, but not more? — Said R. Shesheth, There is no difficulty: in the one case they are scooped out; in the other they are pulled out. '[If] four or five [are left], it is permitted.' Seeing that it is permitted [with] five, need four be stated? — Said R. Hisda: [It means] four in a small sandal and five in a large sandal. 'While Rabbi permits it up to seven.' But it was taught: Rabbi permits it up to thirteen? An inclining [sandal] is different.  Now that you have arrived at this [distinction], on R. Johanan's view too there is no difficulty: an inclining [sandal] is different. R. Mattenah — others state, R. Ahadboi b. Mattenah in R. Mattenah's name — said: The halachah is not as R. Eleazar son of R. Simeon. But that is obvious: [where] one disagrees with many, the halachah is as the majority? — You might argue, R. Eleazar son of R. Simeon's view is logical here;  hence we are informed [that we do not follow him]. R. Hiyya said: But that I would be dubbed a Babylonian who permits forbidden things,  I would permit more. And how many, — In Pumbeditha they say, Twenty-four; in Sura, twenty-two. R. Nahman b. Isaac said: And your sign [to remember this is]: by the time he [R. Hiyya] travelled from Pumbeditha to Sura  two [nails] were missing [from his sandals]. NOR WITH A SINGLE [SANDAL], IF HE HAS NO WOUND [or, BRUISE] ON HIS FOOT.