טְהוֹרוֹת.

are ritually pure.

אָמַר רַבִּי יִצְחָק (נַפָּחָא): בְּבָאִין מִנּוֹי אָדָם לְנוֹי בְּהֵמָה.

Rabbi Yitzḥak Nappaḥa said: Our mishna is referring to ornaments that were transformed from their original designation for a person’s adornment to an ornament designated for an animal’s adornment. They had once belonged to a person who later affixed them in order to attach a strap to an animal. Their original ritual impurity does not cease when they are attached to the animal.

וְרַב יוֹסֵף אָמַר: הוֹאִיל וְאָדָם מוֹשֵׁךְ בָּהֶם אֶת הַבְּהֵמָה. מִי לֹא תַּנְיָא: מַקֵּל שֶׁל בְּהֵמָה שֶׁל מַתֶּכֶת מְקַבֵּל טוּמְאָה, מַה טַּעַם – הוֹאִיל וְאָדָם רוֹדָה בָּהֶן. הָכָא נַמִי: הוֹאִיל וְאָדָם מוֹשֵׁךְ בָּהֶן.

And Rav Yosef said: Animals’ rings can become ritually impure since a person pulls his animal with them. Consequently, they are considered utensils used by people. Wasn’t it taught in a baraita : The metal animal prod becomes ritually impure? What is the reason that it becomes ritually impure even though it is an animal’s utensil? Since a person subjugates his animal with it, it is regarded as a utensil for use by a person; therefore, it can become ritually impure. Here too , with regard to chains, since a person pulls his animal with them, they are regarded as utensils for use by a person.

“וְטוֹבְלָן בִּמְקוֹמָן״. וְהָאִיכָּא חֲצִיצָה!

And we learned in our mishna: If the animals’ chains became ritually impure, one may immerse them while they are in their place on the animal, and they need not first be removed. The Gemara raises a question: Isn’t this an obstruction that renders the immersion invalid? The rings of the chain are firmly attached to the chain, and there is no room for the water of the ritual bath to completely surround the chain.

אָמַר רַבִּי אַמִי: בְּשֶׁרִיתְּכָן.

Rabbi Ami said: The mishna is referring to a case where he struck the rings of the chain with a hammer, widening them and thereby creating sufficient space to allow the water to surround the chain on all sides.

לֵימָא רַבִּי אַמִי כְּרַב יוֹסֵף סְבִירָא לֵיהּ, דְּאִי כְּרַבִּי יִצְחָק (נַפָּחָא), דְּאָמַר: “בְּבָאִין מִנּוֹי אָדָם לְנוֹי בְּהֵמָה״ כֵּיוָן דְּרִיתְּכָן – עֲבַד בְּהוּ מַעֲשֶׂה וּפָרְחָה לָהּ טוּמְאָה מִינַּיְיהוּ!

The Gemara asks: Let us say that Rabbi Ami holds in accordance with the opinion of Rav Yosef. As, if he held in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yitzḥak Nappaḥa, who said that our mishna is referring to ornaments that were transformed from their original designation for a person’s adornment to an ornament designated for an animal’s adornment, and therefore they can be ritually impure with impurity contracted while it was still a person’s ornament, it is difficult. Since he struck the chain, he performed an action which altered its identity, and the impurity would have ceased even without immersion.

דִּתְנַן: כָּל הַכֵּלִים יוֹרְדִין לִידֵי טוּמְאָתָן בְּמַחֲשָׁבָה, וְאֵין עוֹלִין מִטּוּמְאָתָן אֶלָּא בְּשִׁינּוּי מַעֲשֶׂה!

As we learned in a mishna: All vessels descend into their state of ritual impurity by means of thought. Even though an unfinished vessel cannot become ritually impure, if the craftsman decided not to complete it, it immediately assumes the legal status of a completed vessel and can become ritually impure. However, they only ascend from their state of ritual impurity by means of a change resulting from an action.

סָבַר לָהּ כְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה, דְּאָמַר: מַעֲשֶׂה לְתַקֵּן – לָאו מַעֲשֶׂה הוּא. דְּתַנְיָא, רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: לֹא אָמַר שִׁינּוּי מַעֲשֶׂה לְתַקֵּן אֶלָּא לְקַלְקֵל.

The Gemara rejects this argument: Actually, Rabbi Ami could interpret the mishna just as Rabbi Yitzḥak Nappaḥa did, as he holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, who said that an action performed to enhance a utensil is not an action capable of ridding that utensil of its ritual impurity, as it was taught in a baraita : Rabbi Yehuda said: He did not say that an action that effects a physical change purifies a utensil of its ritual impurity with regard to an action performed to enhance a utensil; rather, he made his statement with regard to an action performed to ruin the utensil.

בְּמַתְנִיתָא תָּנֵי: בִּמְחוּלָּלִין.

It was taught in a baraita : The mishna is referring to a case where the rings attached to the chain are well spaced so that the water completely surrounds the rings of the chain with no obstruction.

שָׁאַל תַּלְמִיד אֶחָד מִגָּלִיל הָעֶלְיוֹן אֶת רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר: שָׁמַעְתִּי שֶׁחוֹלְקִין בֵּין טַבַּעַת לְטַבַּעַת, אָמַר לוֹ: שֶׁמָּא לֹא שָׁמַעְתְּ אֶלָּא לְעִנְיַן שַׁבָּת, דְּאִי לְעִנְיַן טוּמְאָה – דָּא וְדָא חֲדָא הִיא.

It was taught in the Tosefta : A certain disciple from the Upper Galilee asked Rabbi Eliezer: I heard that one distinguishes between one type of ring and another type of ring. However, I do not know with regard to what halakha this distinction is made. Rabbi Eliezer said to him: Perhaps you only heard that distinction with regard to the matter of Shabbat; a ring for adornment may be moved on Shabbat and other rings may not. As, with regard to the matter of ritual impurity, this ring and that ring are one and the same, and there is no distinction between them.

וּלְעִנְיַן טוּמְאָה דָּא וְדָא אַחַת הִיא?! וְהָתְנַן: טַבַּעַת אָדָם – טְמֵאָה, וְטַבַּעַת בְּהֵמָה וְכֵלִים וּשְׁאָר כָּל הַטַּבָּעוֹת – טְהוֹרוֹת. כִּי קָאָמַר לֵיהּ אִיהוּ – נַמִי דְּאָדָם קָאָמַר לֵיהּ.

The Gemara raises an objection: And with regard to the matter of ritual impurity, are this and that one and the same? Didn’t we learn in a mishna: A ring worn by a person is ritually impure; however, the ring of an animal, and that of utensils, and all other rings not worn by people are ritually pure? Apparently, a distinction is made between different types of rings with regard to the halakhot of ritual impurity as well. The Gemara answers: When Rabbi Eliezer was saying that statement to the disciple, he too was saying to him that with regard to ritual impurity there is no distinction between different types of rings worn by a person.

וּדְאָדָם דָּא וְדָא אַחַת הִיא? וְהָתַנְיָא: טַבַּעַת שֶׁהִתְקִינָהּ לַחֲגוֹר בָּהּ מָתְנָיו וּלְקַשֵּׁר בָּהּ בֵּין כְּתֵפָיו – טְהוֹרָה. וְלֹא אָמְרוּ טְמֵאָה – אֶלָּא שֶׁל אֶצְבַּע בִּלְבַד! כִּי קָאָמַר לֵיהּ אִיהוּ – נַמִי דְּאֶצְבַּע קָאָמַר לֵיהּ.

The Gemara raises another objection: And with regard to rings worn by a person , are this and that one and the same? Wasn’t it taught in a baraita : A ring that one fashioned into a buckle at the end of a belt to wear it around his waist, or into a clasp to tie garments between his shoulders, is ritually pure? The Sages only said that a ring is ritually impure with regard to a ring worn on a person’s finger. Apparently, there is in fact a distinction between different rings worn by a person. The Gemara answers: When Rabbi Eliezer was saying that statement to the disciple, he too was saying to him that there is no distinction between different types of rings worn on a person’s finger.

וּדְאֶצְבַּע דָּא וְדָא אַחַת הִיא? וְהָתְנַן: טַבַּעַת שֶׁל מַתֶּכֶת וְחוֹתָמָהּ שֶׁל אַלְמוֹג – טְמֵאָה, הִיא שֶׁל אַלְמוֹג וְחוֹתָמָהּ שֶׁל מַתֶּכֶת – טְהוֹרָה! כִּי קָאָמַר לֵיהּ אִיהוּ נַמִי כּוּלָּהּ שֶׁל מַתֶּכֶת קָאָמַר לֵיהּ.

The Gemara raises yet another objection: And with regard to rings worn on a person’s finger, are this and that one and the same? Didn’t we learn in a mishna: A ring made of metal and its seal is made of coral, is ritually impure? The primary component of the ring, metal, is the determining factor, and a metal utensil can become ritually impure. However, a ring that is made of coral and its seal is made of metal is ritually pure. Apparently, there is a distinction between different types of finger rings with regard to ritual impurity. The Gemara answers: When Rabbi Eliezer was saying that statement to the disciple, he too was saying to him that there is no distinction between different types of rings that are made entirely of metal.

וְעוֹד שָׁאַל: שָׁמַעְתִּי שֶׁחוֹלְקִין בֵּין מַחַט לְמַחַט. אָמַר לֵיהּ: שֶׁמָּא לֹא שָׁמַעְתָּ אֶלָּא לְעִנְיַן שַׁבָּת, דְּאִי לְעִנְיַן טוּמְאָה – דָּא וְדָא אַחַת הִיא.

And furthermore, that same disciple asked: I heard that one distinguishes between one type of needle and another type of needle. Still, I do not know with regard to what halakha this distinction is made. Rabbi Eliezer said to him: Perhaps you only heard that distinction with regard to Shabbat. With regard to the prohibition of carrying from a private to a public domain, or vice versa, there is a distinction between a needle with an eye, for which one is liable to bring a sin-offering, and one without an eye, for which one is not. As, if you were to suggest that the distinction is with regard to ritual impurity, this, a needle with an eye, and that, a needle without an eye, are one and the same, and there is no distinction between them.

וּלְעִנְיַן טוּמְאָה דָּא וְדָא אַחַת הִיא? וְהָתְנַן: מַחַט שֶׁנִּיטַּל חוֹרָהּ אוֹ עוּקְצָהּ – טְהוֹרָה! כִּי קָאָמַר לֵיהּ – בִּשְׁלֵימָה.

The Gemara raises an objection: And with regard to the matter of ritual impurity, are this and that one and the same? Are all needles alike? Didn’t we learn in a mishna: A needle whose eye or whose point was removed is ritually pure, as it is no longer fit for use? Apparently, there is a distinction between an intact needle and a broken one with regard to the halakhot of ritual impurity. The Gemara answers: When Rabbi Eliezer was saying that statement to the disciple, he was referring to a whole needle. Indeed, there is no distinction between different types of whole needles with regard to the halakhot of ritual impurity.

וּבִשְׁלֵימָה דָּא וְדָא אַחַת הִיא?! וְהָתְנַן: מַחַט שֶׁהֶעֶלְתָה חֲלוּדָּה, אִם מְעַכֵּב אֶת הַתְּפִירָה – טְהוֹרָה, וְאִם לָאו – טְמֵאָה, וְאָמְרִי דְּבֵי רַבִּי יַנַּאי: וְהוּא שֶׁרִישּׁוּמָהּ נִיכָּר! כִּי קָאָמַר לֵיהּ – בְּשִׁיפָא קָאָמַר לֵיהּ.

The Gemara raises another objection: And with regard to whole needles, are this and that one and the same? Is there no distinction between them? Didn’t we learn in a mishna: With regard to a needle that became rusty ; if the rust inhibits the sewing, the needle is ritually pure; and if it does not inhibit the sewing, it is ritually impure. And the Sages of the school of Rabbi Yannai said: And that is the halakha that the needle cannot become ritually impure not only when it is impossible to push the needle through the fabric, but even when the mark of rusty needle is conspicuous in the stitching. Apparently, there is a distinction between different types of whole needles. The Gemara answers: When Rabbi Eliezer was saying that statement to the disciple, he was saying to him that there is no distinction between different types of needles that were smoothed and filed. He was not referring to rusty needles.

וּבְשִׁיפָא דָּא וְדָא אַחַת הִיא? וְהָתַנְיָא: מַחַט, בֵּין נְקוּבָה בֵּין אֵינָה נְקוּבָה – מוּתָּר לְטַלְטְלָהּ בַּשַּׁבָּת, וְלָא אָמְרִינַן “נְקוּבָה״ – אֶלָּא לְעִנְיַן טוּמְאָה בִּלְבַד!

The Gemara raises yet another objection: And with regard to smoothed needles, are this and that one and the same? Wasn’t it taught in a baraita : A needle, whether it has an eye and whether it does not have an eye, may be moved on Shabbat? And we only said that a needle with an eye is different with regard to the halakhot of ritual impurity. Apparently, there is a distinction between different types of smoothed needles with regard to the halakhot of ritual impurity.

הָא תִּרְגְּמָא אַבַּיֵי אַלִּיבָּא דְּרָבָא – בְּגָלְמֵי.

The Gemara answers: Didn’t Abaye already interpret that baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rava as referring to unfinished needles? If a needle is unfinished, and it has not been perforated to create an eye, it cannot become ritually impure because it is not yet a utensil. However, if the needle is finished, whether it has an eye and is used for sewing, or it does not have an eye and is used as a pin, it is regarded as a utensil and therefore can become ritually impure.

מתני׳ חֲמוֹר יוֹצֵא בַּמַּרְדַּעַת בִּזְמַן שֶׁהִיא קְשׁוּרָה בּוֹ. זְכָרִים יוֹצְאִין לְבוּבִין. רְחֵלוֹת יוֹצְאוֹת שְׁחוּזוֹת, כְּבוּלוֹת, וּכְבוּנוֹת. הָעִזִּים יוֹצְאוֹת צְרוֹרוֹת. רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹסֵר בְּכוּלָּן, חוּץ מִן הָרְחֵלִין הַכְּבוּנוֹת.

A donkey may go out on Shabbat with a saddlecloth that protects it from the cold when it is tied to the animal, and there is no room for concern lest it fall. Rams may go out levuvin . Ewes may go out sheḥuzot, kevulot, and kevunot . All of these terms are discussed and explained in the Gemara. She-goats may go out with their udders bound. Rabbi Yosei prohibits the animals from going out with all of these items, as he considers them burdens, except for the ewes that are kevunot .

רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: עִזִּים יוֹצְאוֹת צְרוּרוֹת לְיַבֵּשׁ, אֲבָל לֹא לֵחָלֵב.

Rabbi Yehuda says: Goats may go out on Shabbat with their udders bound to dry their milk supply and discontinue their lactation, in order to facilitate conception. In that case, they are tied with a tight, permanent knot, and there is no concern lest it fall in the public domain. However, they may not go out with their udders bound to conserve their milk, as in that case they are bound loosely.