How should we conceptualize canes? Should we view the cane as an auxiliary item meant to help someone walk? Or does the cane become an integral part of the person using it, integrating with their very person?
Halacha relates to canes in two areas that offer some insight:
The Torah in Shemos (21:18-19) discusses a case where one person hits another, who is bedridden, subsequently gets better, then relapses and dies. If the person walks “al mishanto” in the intermediate period, the one who struck them is exempted from the death penalty. What does “al mishanto” mean? Ibn Ezra and other mefarshim say (following the standard meaning of the word “mishenet”) that it means one’s cane, and even if one can walk only with a cane, they are considered to have recovered, presumably because the cane is considered an integrated part of the sick person. By contrast, the Mechilta says that “al mishanto” means “on one’s own power,” and limping, or being able to walk only with a cane does not count as recovery.
Can one use a cane on Shabbos in a place without an eruv? The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 301:17) paskens that “a lame person who cannot walk without a stick, may walk with one, even if they are not attached to him. But if he can walk without it and he only takes it to strengthen himself, it is prohibited.” On this approach, only if the cane is absolutely necessary to walk is it included as an inherent part of the person.
