1)

(a)Our Mishnah rules that a woman who carries a needle without an eye is not Chayav Chatas. In that case, it must have served some ornamental purpose. That purpose cannot however have been to roll with it the locks of her hair that protruded from under her hat, and tuck them in - because if it was, then it would have been permitted for her to go out with it, just like she may go out wearing a garter, and for exactly the same reason (because she would never dream of removing them to show her friends, however beautiful it looked).

(b)The purpose that the eye-less needle (a pin) served - was to part a woman's hair during the week.

(c)Even though it was not used for that purpose on Shabbos (see Tosfos DH 'le'Mai'), a woman would neverthelss want to go out with it on Shabbos - because the blunt end was attached to a sort of gold brooch, to be used as an ornament on Shabbos.

2)

(a)A 'Sandal ha'Mesumar' - is a wooden shoe, a sort of clog, possibly with leather on top, which is somehow held fast by means of a series of nails which protrude from the sole (a sort of hob-nailed boot).

(b)According to the Yerushalmi, a man who has no wound on his foot is forbidden to go out wearing oa Sandal ha'Mesumar because, seeing as both of his feet are healthy, people will suspect him of carrying the second shoe, hidden in his clothes. Others however, explain that people might laugh at him for walking with one shoe on and one shoe off, until he in his embarrassment, will remove the shoe he is wearing, and carry it home.

3)

(a)One is permitted to go into the street wearing a Kamei'a - that has been tried and proved and proved to be effective.

(b)Although one is not permitted to go into the street wearing armor - one is nevertheless not Chayav Chatas for doing so - because it is worn on weekday and in wartime, and therefore falls unfer the category of clothes.

4)

(a)There are three versions of the reason as to why Chazal issued the decreed of Sandal ha'Mesumar. According to Shmuel, people were hiding in a cave to escape an evil decree. No-one was permitted to leave or to enter. It happened once that, due to the shape of the shoe (which had two openings for the feet, so that it could be worn in two ways), a shoe worn by someone, left an impression in the ground that looked as if he had left the cave. When the people in the cave saw it, they believed that the enemy had discovered them, and flocked to the entrance to escape. A stampede ensued, in which, due to the Sandal ha'Mesumar that they were happened to be wearing, many of them were trampled to death. Rebbi Ila'i ben Elazar describes the episode slightly differently. According to him - the story ended the same way, but the catalyst was not the footprint, but a noise that they heard above the cave, and which they believed to have been someone from the enemy who had spotted them.

(b)According to Rami bar Yechezkel, the incident did not take place in a cave at all. In his opinion - they were in Shul when they heard a noise behind the Shul, which they took to be that of the enemy.

(c)According to all the versions, the tragic outcome of the incident was - that more were killed then among themselves, than the enemy succeeded in killing.

(d)The prohibition is confined to Shabbos and Tom-Tov, and not ...

1. ... to weekdays - because the episode took place on Shabbos, and it was the way of Chazal to make decrees of this nature as similar as possible to the event. Yom-Tov, like Shabbos, is a day of rest, when Melachah is not performed, and on which, like on Shabbos, people assemble in Shul, so they included it in the decree.

2. ... to fast-days (i.e. those fast-days on which one does customarily not work) - because even though on fast-days it was not customary to work either, and people would also assemble in Shul, those days were not comparable to Shabbos and Yom-Tov, because work was intrinsically forbidden, as it is on Shabbos and Yom-Tov.

5)

(a)Rebbi Chanina ben Akiva, who restricts the prohibition to the Jordan River and to a boat, which is where the episode occurred - is referring to the occasion when they were once transported ashes of the Parah Adumah across the Jordan River in a boat, when they discovered a K'zayis of corpse stuck to the bottom of the boat, rendering the ashes Tamei. Chazal then issued a decree prohibiting the transportation of the ashes of the Parah Adumah across the river.

(b)According to the Chachamim, Chazal's decree extended to any river, using any method of transportation, even carrying it on foot across a bridge.

(c)It is permitted to wear a Sandal ha'Mesumar, if the nails are ornamental, as opposed to serving the purpose of strengthening the shoe. One would know that that was the case - by the number of nails that there were. According to Rebbi Yochanan, up to five on each shoe was ornamental, and according to Rebbi Chanina, or to seven was permitted.

(d)The nails were placed two or three on either side of the shoe, and the odd one, where the straps of the shoe were situated - on the location of the ankle.

6)

(a)Rebbi in a Beraisa, permits a 'Sandal ha'Noteh' with as many as thirteen nails. A Sandal ha'Noteh is - a shoe that was flat one side, and thick on the other. The nails were fitted in order to level the sole of the shoe.

(b)Eifah said to Rabbah bar bar Chanah 'You, who are Talmidim of Rebbi Yochanan, do like Rebbi Yochanan (who requires five nails), we will do like Rebbi Chanina (who requires seven)'.

7)

(a)A shoe that was stitched from the inside is called a Man'al, not a Sandal - and Chazal issued their decree on a Sandal ha'Mesumar, not on a Man'al.

(b)A shoe which had nails ...

1. ... bent like a crescent, or shaped like a metal plate or a peg - is not included in the decree.

2. ... which covered the entire sole area - is not included in the decree either.

(c)One is not allowed to walk in the house on Shabbos, wearing a Sandal ha'Mesumar - because Chazal forbade even walking with it from one bed to another.

(d)Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon considers a Sandal ha'Mesumar Muktzah on Shabbos. The Tana Kama does not. Both agree that, in principle, an object that is usable, is not intrinsically Muktzah (like a K'li that is 'Muktzah Machmas Isur Melachto', which may be used 'le'Tzorech Gufo u'Mekomo'). However, Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon decreed Muktzah on the Sandal ha'Mesumar, because someone who handles it, is likely to wear it; the Rabbanan did not.

8)

(a)We reconcile the Beraisa which permits a Sandal ha'Mesumar, if certain number of nails fell out: four or five, or seven, with the same Beraisa which rules that, if the majority of nails have 'fallen out', the shoe is permitted, irrespective of how many remain - by establishing the former, when the nails literally fell out, because then, how would one ascertain that it was the majority of nails fell out; whereas the Beraisa which permitted a shoe provided the majority fell out speaks when the nails did not actually fall out, but when they became bent, something which can be ascertained at a glance.

(b)According to the Tana Kama, the shoe is permitted if four or five nails remain - four on a small Sandal ha'Mesumar, five on a large one.

(c)Rebbi permits the shoe provided seven nails remain. When earlier in the Sugya, he permitted a Sandal ha'Mesumar even with thirteen nails, he was talking about a 'Sandal ha'Noteh' exclusively, because there, all the nails were needed to straighten the shoe (as we explained).

(d)In view of how we just explained the opinion of Rebbi, we can explain Rebbi Yochanan in the same way: Rebbi Yochanan himself requires a maximum of five nails for the Sandal to be permitted on Shabbos. A Sandal ha'Noteh however, is different, as we just explained, and he will agree that even seven nails (like Rebbi Nasan) or thirteen (like Rebbi) is also permitted.

9)

(a)Rav Masna found it necessary to rule against Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon (a minority opinion), who forbids a Sandal ha'Mesumar because of Muktzah - because otherwise, due to the logic of his opinion (as we explained in 7d.), we would have tended to accept it.

(b)Some say that Rebbi Chiya wanted to permit a Sandal ha'Mesumar with twenty-four nails, others say with twenty-two. He did not go ahead and and do so - because, having only recently arrived in Eretz Yisrael from Bavel, was afraid to acquire for himself the title 'the Babylonian who permits what is forbidden'.