Rubber Shoes on Shabbos - Rabbi Shalom Dovber Levin shlita

00:02 Speaker 1 You’re listening to the “Lema’an Yishme’u” podcast from Machon Halacha Chabad.

00:09 Speaker 2 There is a major dispute over whether wooden shoes or rubber shoes have the halachic status of shoes. This matters for Yom Kippur, when wearing shoes is forbidden: if these count as shoes, one may not wear rubber or wooden shoes. It also matters for Shabbos: if they are neither shoes nor clothing, one may not go out wearing them into a public domain, as we’ll discuss shortly. And it matters for chalitzah. The verse says, “She shall remove his shoe from his foot.” If a wooden or rubber shoe counts as a shoe, chalitzah can be performed with it; if not, it cannot. This is a dispute among the Tannaim in the Mishnah and the Baraisa, a dispute in the Gemara and among the halachic authorities. On certain details, there is even a change of position within the Alter Rebbe’s Shulchan Aruch itself, as we’ll discuss shortly. So let’s begin with the law concerning Yom Kippur. The Alter Rebbe gives the ruling in section 614, paragraph 2: “What does the prohibition against wearing shoes entail? One may not wear a leather shoe or a leather sandal, but rubber and wooden ones are permitted.” Why? Because that is the halachic ruling, even though the authorities disagree. How do we rule? Tosafos and the Ran hold that one may not wear rubber shoes on Yom Kippur, but we rule like the Rif and the Rambam. The Alter Rebbe explains this in Kuntres Acharon, in the laws of Shabbos, subsection 5. He writes: “Although Tosafos and the Ran did not write this, nevertheless we do not rule that way, but rather like the Rif, who permitted even a wooden shoe on Yom Kippur,” as explained in section 614. As we said, the ruling there is that it is permitted. Nevertheless, some consideration is given to the view of Tosafos. The Alter Rebbe therefore concludes in section 614: “Someone who is able to should preferably be stringent about a wooden sandal, even if it is not covered with leather—not to walk

03:11 Speaker 2 on Yom Kippur in a wooden sandal, because according to Tosafos, that too is called a shoe.” So it would seem that on Yom Kippur we cannot go out in either wooden shoes or rubber shoes, since the dispute concerns both. The Alter Rebbe addresses this immediately afterward, in paragraph 3: “But one may wear a rubber, straw, or cloth sandal or shoe, or one made of other materials.” Why is it permitted? According to Tosafos, a rubber shoe also has the status of a shoe, and shoes made of either wood or rubber are forbidden on Yom Kippur. So the Alter Rebbe gives two reasons. First, the roughness of the ground reaches his feet, and he feels that he is barefoot. In the past, rubber shoes were not made of firm rubber like our shoes, which are comfortable to walk in. A rubber shoe was soft, like a sock. When you walked outside, you immediately felt that the ground wasn’t smooth. So wearing them did not remove the discomfort: even with them on, you still experienced discomfort. That is one reason to permit them. The second reason is that only shoes were prohibited, and anything not made of leather is not called a shoe but an item of clothing. As we said, rubber shoes used to be soft. So, true, they weren’t leather and weren’t called shoes, but they were clothing, like socks, and were therefore permitted. Neither of these reasons helps with our rubber shoes. They are made to be as comfortable as shoes and are as sturdy as shoes. They aren’t clothing; they’re shoes. And you don’t feel the stones in the street through them, just as you don’t with shoes. So it would seem that our rubber shoes have the same status as wooden

05:52 Speaker 2 shoes, and according to Tosafos, they too are forbidden. The two explanations the Alter Rebbe gives for why rubber is more lenient than wood don’t really apply to our shoes. But it isn’t such a serious problem, because ultimately even wood is permitted. The halachic ruling is that it is permitted. Fine, someone who wishes to may be stringent about wood, but we are not stringent about rubber. That is why everyone wears rubber shoes on Yom Kippur. That addresses wearing rubber or wooden shoes on Yom Kippur. But there is a problem here. This only helps when you can wear rubber or wooden shoes at home. When I go out into the street wearing them, isn’t it forbidden either way? If they are shoes, they are forbidden because of Yom Kippur. If they are not shoes, then they are neither shoes nor clothing, so one may not go out wearing them into a public domain; they are a burden. True, the Alter Rebbe said that soft rubber shoes have the status of clothing. But our rubber shoes are sturdy. So what do we do? Well, one could say that the uppers of our rubber shoes are entirely cloth, and perhaps that gives them the status of clothing. As for Crocs, I don’t know—perhaps on this basis they would be forbidden. But the Alter Rebbe says in the next paragraph that there is no need to worry about this. This is the Ran’s explanation of the Rif. He asks the question: fine, wooden shoes may be worn, but not in the street. He answers it, and the Alter Rebbe cites his answer: One may also wrap stiff cloth or wood, or hard rubber or some other hard material, around one’s feet and go out wearing it even into a public domain, although on every other Shabbos of the year one may not go out wearing it into a public

08:21 Speaker 2 domain, because a hard object of this kind is not normally worn as clothing. So it isn’t a shoe, because it isn’t leather, and it isn’t clothing, because it is hard. Therefore, one may not go out wearing it on Shabbos. Nevertheless, on Yom Kippur, when wearing shoes is forbidden and he cannot wear leather shoes, it is considered normal clothing for that day. On Yom Kippur, then, one may go outside in wooden shoes or hard rubber shoes. On Shabbos it is forbidden. On Shabbos, one may not go outside in wooden shoes, or in rubber shoes if they are hard and have no cloth on them. But we are not stringent about this. This particular point is the Ran’s understanding of the Rif, and it appears in the Shulchan Aruch as law. But the Alter Rebbe himself changed his position on it, and he tries to find the reason for permitting it, since the Rema explicitly says that it is permitted. Accordingly, the Alter Rebbe rules in section 301, paragraph 12, toward the end of the paragraph, that a person with an amputated leg may go out in a wooden shoe, and even if it is not covered with leather at all, he may go out wearing it on Shabbos, even though it isn’t Yom Kippur. So what is the reasoning? Why should it be permitted? It is neither a shoe nor clothing; it is just wood. Why should one be allowed to go out wearing it on Shabbos? To explain this, he first introduces another law. The Mishnah records a dispute among the Tannaim about a person whose leg has been amputated and who has only the lower part of it left. Obviously, he cannot walk on that leg, so he walks with wooden supports—crutches, as they’re called—and leans on them. What is the problem? He feels uncomfortable going outside where everyone will see that he is missing a leg. He would rather people see that he has two legs, but that he walks with crutches because he has some problem with one of them. That isn’t so bad. So he makes a wooden leg and fits it over the remaining part of his leg.

11:12 Speaker 2 The Mishnah records a dispute over whether he may go out wearing it, and the halachic ruling is that he may not go out wearing it on Shabbos. Why? Because wood is not a shoe, and if it is not a shoe, he may not go out wearing it on Shabbos. But if he covers that wood with leather and the leather fits over the remaining part of his leg, it is called a shoe. One may go out wearing a shoe. So we see from the Mishnah, the Gemara, and the halachic authorities’ conclusion that one may not go out wearing a wooden shoe, because a wooden shoe is not called a shoe. That is the Rif’s conclusion. This raises a question: if one may not go out wearing a wooden shoe fitted over the remaining part of the leg, why may one go out wearing a wooden shoe fitted over the foot? It is neither a shoe nor clothing. So the Alter Rebbe explains: “A person whose leg has been amputated may go out wearing his wooden prosthesis. That is, he makes something shaped like a foot and hollows it out a little so that he can place the end of his remaining leg inside it.” The remaining part of the leg goes inside the wood. “He does not make this prosthesis in order to walk on it.” He does not walk on it. “Rather, he makes it so that he will not appear to be missing a leg, but will appear to have an impaired leg. Therefore, since he does not need it for walking, it is like a burden and is forbidden.” He may not go out wearing it. The question is: why does it matter that I don’t intend to use it for walking? Don’t I step on it? If it is a shoe—if it is something I step on and it has the status of a shoe—then I may go out wearing it, even if I am not using it as a shoe. I am wearing it only so that it looks as though I have a leg. After all, anything that has the status of clothing may be worn outside, even if one does not need to wear it for walking but rather for

13:59 Speaker 2 Another case. If so, why shouldn’t the same apply to this artificial leg, which is his shoe? We said that a wooden shoe is permitted, even if he does not need it for walking but only to disguise the fact that he is missing a leg. The Alter Rebbe explains that this artificial leg has no status as a shoe at all, since it is made of wood, and only something made of leather is called a shoe. In other words, the Alter Rebbe explains it this way: If I use something to walk on, to step on and support myself, I may go out with it whether or not it is called a shoe. It makes no difference to me. So even if a wooden shoe is not called a shoe, since I step on it, I may walk with it. But here, with the artificial leg, I do not step on it. It is only there to make it look as though I have a leg. So if it has the status of a shoe because it is made of leather, I may go out with it even if my purpose is to disguise my missing leg. I may dress up over my clothes and go out in a costume on Shabbos. Since I am wearing something that is called clothing, it does not matter if my intention is not to use it as clothing and it does not keep me warm. But if it is not clothing, I may go out with it only when I lean on it, when it protects my body. If I do not lean on it and it is only a disguise, it is forbidden. That is the Alter Rebbe’s explanation; we have to explain it this way, although he does not adopt that approach. The Ran offered the explanation we cited earlier, according to which it is forbidden to go out with a wooden shoe on Shabbos. But here we have to give this explanation. He explains it in Kuntres Acharon: “One must say, even though [unclear]...

16:22 Speaker 2 ...since the foot goes into it and he walks with it, it is permitted. Why should it be any less than a garment for the foot?” And he brings proof from the law that an elderly person who cannot walk without a cane may go out with one. What is a cane? It is wood, and I am not wearing it on my foot. Why may I go out with it? After all, I am carrying a cane in my hand. Since I lean on it, I may go out with anything I lean on, just as I may go out with a shoe. That is why I may go out with a wooden shoe. But here, where I do not lean on it, if it has the status of a leather shoe, I may go out with it even when I use it as a disguise. If it does not have the status of a shoe because it is made of wood, I may not use it as a disguise. That is the Alter Rebbe’s conclusion regarding this halachah. And it is a general principle throughout the laws of clothing and shoes on Shabbos. To explain it, he first gives a section discussing the law of a garment, where the same principle applies. As we said about a shoe, there are two ways I may go out with it: either I lean on it and it protects my body, or it is considered a shoe. The same two possibilities apply to clothing. Earlier, there is the law concerning women who wear a wig: if it rains a little and the wig might be ruined, they put a plastic covering over it so it will not get dirty or wet. They may not go out with that on Shabbos. Only if the plastic also protects my body from getting wet is it permitted; if it is just for the wig, it is forbidden. And he asks there again: Aren’t I allowed to go out wearing a garment even if I intend to give it to someone? I have a coat, and I put another coat on because I need to bring it to someone. That is permitted. But there it is being worn. A garment has that status when it is worn on the body, like trousers; then it is called a garment. Here it is not worn on me; it is merely resting on me. We know that a cloth resting on me is considered a garment if it covers my head and most of my body. Something is called clothing either when it is worn on me like trousers, or when it rests over my head and most of my body. This plastic I put over the wig does not cover my head and most of my body, and I am not wearing it like trousers. So what would permit it? If it protects my body, it is permitted in any event. But if it does not protect my body and only protects my clothes, I may not go out with it, because it is not clothing and does not protect my body. Similarly, there is a law concerning a woman who needs to keep herself clean at certain times. She uses what is called a pad so that the blood will go onto it and not onto her body. Is that clothing? It is not clothing; it is not worn on me at all. So why may she go out with it? Because it helps her body. Anything that helps my body may be taken outside like clothing, even though it is not clothing. Clothing is only something worn on me or something that rests over my head and most of my body. If it is neither of those, it is permitted only when I need it for my body. Protecting the wig is a separate purpose. If the plastic is a covering that I wear over my head and most of my body, including most of my shoulders, so that it is called clothing, then I may go out with it even if I only want to protect...

18:50 Speaker 2 ...the wig. But if it is not clothing—if it does not cover the head and most of the shoulders—then I may go out with it only if it protects my body. That is how he explains it in the preceding section, in the two preceding sections. First he says that clothing is specifically something worn like a garment, front and back, like trousers worn for modesty. That is called being dressed in it. But if it is worn to protect the body, she may go out with it in any event. Therefore, with this plastic covering too, since it does not cover the head and most of the body, a woman may not put a cloth over her scarf to keep it from getting dirty in the rain. Since her intention is to protect it from dirt, the cloth is not considered clothing. But if her intention is to keep the rain off her skin so that it will not cause her discomfort, she may spread a cloth over her head, even if it also serves another purpose. Why? Unless she wraps most of her body in it as one does with a garment. Clothing is either something I wear or something I wrap around myself that rests over my head and most of my body. A shoe is something made of leather. But if it is not made of leather, and it does not cover the head and most of the body, and it does not fit around me like trousers, it is permitted only when it protects the body. Either I put on the plastic to keep the rain off my face, or I put on the wooden shoe so that I can step on it. This is the reason a person may go out with a cane. A cane is not called clothing or a shoe. First of all, it is made of wood, and second, it is not on my foot; I am only holding it. But if I lean on it, it is permitted—specifically when I lean on it. So he concludes that if a blind person needs a cane to guide him, he may not go out with it on Shabbos. Why? Because that serves a separate purpose. I do not step on it...

21:07 Speaker 2 ...If it had the status of a shoe, it would be permitted even if its purpose were to help me find my way as I walk. But since it does not have the status of a shoe—it is a cane—I may not use it merely for guidance, unless I walk while leaning on it. Then it is like a shoe and is permitted. There is another very important detail here. Some elderly people walk without a cane at home but use one outside. Why? Because balance is not as strong in old age, and they are afraid of falling. So a person goes out with a cane. He only places it on the ground, and if he loses his balance, he immediately presses it against the ground and does not fall. He may go out with it only if he leans on it. Preventing a fall in case I lose my balance is a separate purpose; as I walk now, I am not leaning on it the whole way, so it is forbidden. He therefore goes on to explain that a blind person who cannot walk at all without a cane may use one. But if he can walk a little without a cane, he takes it only to steady himself so that he can walk better and not fall. An elderly man—or an elderly woman—who walks at home without a cane and uses one only when going outside does not need it to support the full weight of the body throughout the walk. Rather, the person uses it for support when afraid of falling, pressing down on it as soon as balance is lost. So if I am not leaning on it the whole way, it is not a shoe, and I am not leaning on it; therefore it is forbidden. This is the general introduction to the laws of clothing and shoes. There are two ways I may go out with something: either I lean on it and it protects my body, or it is considered clothing. Something is considered clothing if it is worn...

23:38 Speaker 2 ...on me, or if it covers my head and most of my body, including most of my shoulders. A shoe has that status when it is made of leather; that remains the halachah, as held by the Rif and the Rambam. But even without that status, I may go out with a wooden shoe when I step on it. So there is no problem going out with a thick, sturdy rubber shoe. It is not a shoe in that sense, since it is not leather, but I may go out with it because I lean on it. The same applies to a cane: if I lean on it, I may go out with it on Shabbos and also on Yom Kippur.

25:47 Speaker 2 On me, or if it covers his head and most of his body, most of his shoulder. As for a shoe, when it is made of leather, the halachah remains as stated by the Rif and the Rambam. But without that, it is permitted to walk in a wooden shoe that I step on. So there is no problem walking in a shoe made of thick, sturdy rubber. Since it is not leather, I may walk in it even though I rely on it for support. The same applies to a cane: if I lean on it, I may walk with it on Shabbos and also on Yom Kippur.