Siman 614

Anointing is completely forbidden. That is, to smear the body or the head with any forbidden substance, and even a part of his body, and even one limb, and even a part of a limb. However, when he is ill, even if there is no danger, and he requires the anointing for his healing—it is permitted, just as washing was permitted for healing, as I wrote in the previous siman. And so too, one who has scabs on his head—it is like an illness, and it is permitted to anoint in his usual manner, and he need not be concerned. But when he is not ill, and does not have scabs—it is forbidden even to remove filth. And in this, anointing is more stringent than washing. And so it is explained in the Yerushalmi that anointing to remove filth is forbidden, because anointing is more of a pleasure than washing. And in every case there is pleasure, but in truth, even regarding washing they did not permit it for all types of filth, but only when soiled with mud or excrement. Indeed, even in such a case it is forbidden with anointing. (See Magen Avraham subsection 1, and the precision of the author of the Machatzit HaShekel is answered, see there. Examine it and you will find it simple.)

Wearing a sandal is called "affliction" when one does not walk in it. Therefore, it is forbidden on Yom Kippur, as it is written: "Withhold your foot from being unshod"; and it is said: "And David went up by the ascent of the Mount of Olives, and wept as he went up, and had his head covered, and he went barefoot"; and in Isaiah (20:2) it is written: "and put off your shoe from your foot" in order to afflict himself, see there. And there are three opinions in this matter: [1] The opinion of the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch, section 2, that anything made of leather is forbidden, and anything not made of leather is permitted. For they wrote, and this is their wording: It is forbidden to wear a shoe or a sandal of leather, even a wooden leg of an amputee and the like, even one of wood and covered with leather is forbidden. But one of reeds, or of straw, or of cloth, or of other types is permitted even to go out in them to the public domain. Thus far their words. And the intention is not that these types are permitted even when covered with leather, as it would seemingly appear from the surface of the wording, for it is certainly forbidden. Rather, because regarding wood we find in the Gemara (Yevamot 103a) that it can be plated with leather, they wrote thus, but in truth there is no distinction. And this is the opinion of the Rif and the Rosh.

[2] But the method of Rashi is that a shoe of wood is forbidden. And so it appears from the words of the Tosafot in the sugya in Yoma (78b). For Rava concludes there regarding the Mishnah that a person with an amputated leg may go out with his wooden leg, that on Yom Kippur according to everyone it is called a "shoe," and it is forbidden to go out in it, see there. But those of reeds, and of cork, and straw, and cloth, and other types—are permitted. [3] And the method of the Ba'al HaMaor is that according to the conclusion of Rava—all types are forbidden when they are made in the manner of a shoe. And behold, the Ramban rejected this method, see there. But the method of Rashi and Tosafot is explicitly proven in the sugya there. However, in truth, the sugya in Shabbat (66b) and in Yevamot there contradicts the sugya in Yoma. For there it is explicitly proven that according to the Rabbanan, the shoe of an amputee, which is of wood, is not called a "shoe." And it must be said, as the Ramban wrote there, that in Yoma it is only according to Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yossi, and not according to the Rabbanan, and the halacha follows the Rabbanan, see there. And therefore the Rif did not bring this at all. And so in the Yerushalmi (Taanit chapter one, halacha 6) it says: It was taught in a Baraita: One may go out in an anpilya; and it was taught in a Baraita: One may not go out. This one refers to one of cloth, and that one refers to one of leather. See there. And therefore, even though in the Tosefta at the beginning of chapter four it was taught that it is forbidden even in an anpilya of cloth—they did not concern themselves with it, since it is against the Bavli and the Yerushalmi. But regarding one of wood—there is no proof from the Yerushalmi for permission. And in the Yerushalmi chapter twelve of Yevamot (halacha 2) there is a dispute regarding the matter of chalitzah, whether one of wood is called a "shoe." See there.

And in the words of the Rambam, chapter three, law 7, there is room for investigation. The commentators understood that he stands by the approach of the Rif and the Rosh, that anything that is not made of leather is permitted, even if it is of wood. In my humble opinion, this is not implied by his wording, for he wrote: It is forbidden to wear a shoe or a sandal, even on one of his feet. But it is permitted to go out in a sandal of cork or of reeds, and the like. And a person may wrap a cloth around his feet and go out in it, for the hardness of the ground reaches his feet, and he feels that he is barefoot. Thus far his words. Behold, he required that the foot feel its barefootedness, and with wood, it is obvious that it would not feel it, and it is forbidden. And it seems to me regarding his reasoning, that it is not because that of wood is called a "shoe," for regarding the matter of chalitzah he himself ruled in chapter four of Yibbum (halacha 18) that one of wood is invalid. Rather, his reasoning seems to me: that since on Yom Kippur the reason is because of affliction, therefore, anything where one is not afflicted and does not feel that he is walking barefoot is forbidden. For in all things like cork, and reeds, and cloth—the foot feels, because they are soft. This is not so with wood. And according to this, it seems in my humble opinion that one should not go out in a shoe of wood on Yom Kippur, since such is the opinion of Rashi and Tosafot and the Rambam.

And know that among us, we walk in "kaloshen" on Yom Kippur, because they are not of leather. And it is a type of "gummi," and it is also soft, and the foot feels the hardness of the ground, as is known. And all the more so is it permitted to walk in "valenki," which are of simple wool, as they are very soft. However, there are some of them that are thick and very hard, until the foot will not feel the hardness of the ground, and according to what I wrote from the words of the Rambam – it is not correct to walk in them on Yom Kippur, and all the more so when they are covered in leather (and so wrote the Panim Me'irot, cited in the Sha'arei Teshuva in siman 554). And our teacher, the Rema, wrote that it is permitted to stand on leather pillows and bolsters, and nevertheless, one who is stringent, a blessing shall come upon him. Thus far his words. And ostensibly there is no reason for this stringency, and it is permitted ab initio, since it is not a shoe (Magen Avraham subsection 4 in the name of the Radbaz). But according to the words of the Rambam it works well, for the Torah was particular that the foot feel the hardness of the ground, as I wrote. (See the Bach, who wrote that there are those who walked barefoot. And it seems they were concerned for the opinion of the Maor, that according to the conclusion even those of cloth are forbidden. And a semblance of proof may be brought from the Ba'ag, whom the Tur cited, that ab initio at any rate one should not do so. However, in truth, the opinion of the Maor is a single opinion against all our teachers, and against the Yerushalmi, and against the sugyot of Shabbat and Yevamot. And from the Ba'ag there is no proof, for he spoke of the common way of the matter. And see Magen Avraham subsection 2, that they go to the synagogue barefoot while it is still day. And I do not know what particularity there is in this. And some go in shoes, and before sunset they remove them in the synagogue. And similarly what he wrote in subsection 3, regarding standing on pillows during the Shemoneh Esrei prayer that it is like arrogance, see there. And this is only with those high by a tefach at least, and not with those close to the ground. And examine and you will find it simple.)

A woman who has given birth within thirty days, and a sick person even if there is no danger—are permitted to wear a sandal, for for these the cold is very difficult, and they could be endangered. And so too one who has a wound on his feet. And if he has a wound on one foot—he shall wear a shoe on this foot, and on the second foot it is forbidden. And every person is permitted to wear a sandal on account of a scorpion and the like, so that it should not bite him, if scorpions or biting things are common there. But for mere discomfort, such as in places where the streets are paved with stones and it is difficult to walk there barefoot—it is forbidden to wear a shoe. For on the contrary, for this we are commanded to perform the affliction of the removal of the sandal.

Our teacher, the Rema, wrote: If it rained, and one wishes to go from his house to the beit knesset or vice versa, and he is an istanis – it is permitted to wear his shoes until he reaches his destination. Thus far his words. But if he is not an istanis – it is forbidden. And an istanis should place them in a concealed location in the beit knesset. There is one who complains against those who are lenient to walk in the rains, for not every person can say "I am an istanis" (Magen Avraham, subsection 5). In my humble opinion, in our countries when the weather is cold – this is considered a danger, and it is certainly permitted. And it is obvious that when there is mud and mire it is permitted to wear shoes (Taz, subsection 3). There is one who requires switching the left to the right and the right to the left, or a shoe without a heel (Magen Avraham, subsection 6). But the custom is not so, for we do not have shoes without a heel. And as for switching the left to the right – it is impossible for us to walk according to our shoes.