Are animals allowed to carry items that are used for decorative purposes? The mishna discusses the purification of the implements worn on the animal but are they susceptible to impurities? Aren’t only items used by humans susceptible to impurities? How can these items be purified by the animal while wearing it around one’s neck? Isn’t the animal considered a barrier for the water since the water can’t fully surround the item? Rabbi Eliezer tells a student that all rings and all needles are the same when it comes to laws of impurity. The gemara questions this by bringing various sources that indicate otherwise.
Shabbat 52
04.27.2020 | ג׳ באייר תש״פ
Share this shiur:
Want to dedicate learning? Get started here:
Shabbat 52
דְּתִיתּוֹתַב דַּעְתֵּיהּ. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: חֲמוֹר שֶׁעֲסָקָיו רָעִים כְּגוֹן זֶה, מַהוּ לָצֵאת בִּפְרוּמְבְּיָא בְּשַׁבָּת? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: הָכִי אֲמַר אֲבוּךְ מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דִּשְׁמוּאֵל: הֲלָכָה כַּחֲנַנְיָא.
he will be placated and will understand that it was not my intention to disrespect him. He said to him: An undisciplined donkey whose conduct is wicked like this one that I am riding, what is the ruling with regard to having it go out with a halter on Shabbat? Typically, in order to secure a donkey, a bit suffices and it does not require a halter. A halter constitutes excessive security. However, the question is whether or not a halter that provides excessive security for a wild donkey like this one is considered a burden with which it is prohibited to go out to the public domain on Shabbat. Rabba bar Rav Huna said to him: Even if the security is considered extraneous, your father said the following in the name of Shmuel: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Ḥananya, who said that a device that provides excessive security is not considered a burden.
תָּנָא דְּבֵי מְנַשְּׁיָא: עֵז שֶׁחָקַק לָהּ בֵּין קַרְנֶיהָ יוֹצְאָה בְּאַפְסָר בְּשַׁבָּת. בָּעֵי רַב יוֹסֵף: תָּחַב לָהּ בִּזְקָנָהּ מַהוּ? כֵּיוָן דְּאִי מְנַתַּח לַהּ כָּאֵיב לַהּ לָא אָתְיָא לְנַתּוֹחֵהּ, אוֹ דִילְמָא זִימְנִין דְּרָפֵי וְנָפֵיל, וְאָתֵי לְאֵתוּיֵי אַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת בִּרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים. תֵּיקוּ.
A Sage of the school of Menashiya taught a baraita: A goat in which one carved out a hole between its horns may go out with a bit on Shabbat. Because the bit is inserted through the hole, it will not become detached. Rav Yosef raised a dilemma: What is the ruling in a case where one inserted the bit through the goat’s beard? The Gemara explains the dilemma: Is the halakha that since, if the goat attempts to sever itself from the bit, it would cause it pain because the bit is attached to its beard, and therefore it will not come to sever it and the bit will remain in place? Or perhaps is the halakha that sometimes the knot will loosen and the bit will fall, and the goat’s owner will come to bring the bit and carry it four cubits in the public domain? No resolution was found to this dilemma. Let it stand unresolved.
תְּנַן הָתָם: וְלֹא בִּרְצוּעָה שֶׁבֵּין קַרְנֶיהָ. אָמַר (לֵיהּ) רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה בַּר אַבָּא: פְּלִיגִי בַּהּ רַב וּשְׁמוּאֵל. חַד אָמַר: בֵּין לְנוֹי בֵּין לְשַׁמֵּר — אָסוּר. וְחַד אָמַר: לְנוֹי — אָסוּר, וּלְשַׁמֵּר — מוּתָּר.
We learned there in a mishna: And neither may a cow go out with a strap between its horns. Rabbi Yirmeya bar Abba said: Rav and Shmuel disagreed about this: One said: Whether it was placed for beauty, as an ornament, or whether it was placed to secure the cow, it is prohibited for the cow to go out with the strap between its horns. And the other one said: For beauty, it is prohibited; however, if it was placed to secure the cow, it is permitted.
אָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף: תִּסְתַּיֵּים דִּשְׁמוּאֵל הוּא דְּאָמַר לְנוֹי אָסוּר, לְשַׁמֵּר מוּתָּר. דְּאָמַר רַב הוּנָא בַּר חִיָּיא אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: הֲלָכָה כַּחֲנַנְיָא.
Rav Yosef said: Conclude that Shmuel is the one who said that if the strap was placed for beauty it is prohibited; however, if it was placed to secure the cow it is permitted. As Rav Huna bar Ḥiyya said that Shmuel said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Ḥananya: A device that provides excessive security is not considered a burden. Therefore, an animal may go out on Shabbat with straps that provide excessive security.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: אַדְּרַבָּה, תִּסְתַּיֵּים דִּשְׁמוּאֵל הוּא דְּאָמַר בֵּין לְנוֹי בֵּין לְשַׁמֵּר — אָסוּר. דְּאָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: מַחְלִיפִין לִפְנֵי רַבִּי, שֶׁל זוֹ בְּזוֹ מַהוּ? אָמַר לְפָנָיו רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל בְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי, כָּךְ אָמַר אַבָּא: אַרְבַּע בְּהֵמוֹת יוֹצְאוֹת בְּאַפְסָר — הַסּוּס הַפֶּרֶד וְהַגָּמָל וְהַחֲמוֹר. לָאו לְמַעוֹטֵי גָּמָל בַּחֲטָם? סָמִי הָא מִקַּמֵּי הָא.
Abaye said to him: On the contrary, conclude that Shmuel is the one who said that whether it was placed for beauty, as an ornament, or whether it was placed to secure the cow, it is prohibited. As Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: The students exchanged the details in the mishna before Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and asked: What is the halakha with regard to this animal going out into the public domain with that which is permitted for that animal? And Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosei, said before Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi: So said father, Rabbi Yosei: Four animals may go out with a bit: The horse, the mule, and the camel, and the donkey. Does this list not come to exclude a camel going out with a nose ring, as a nose ring provides excessive security beyond that required for a camel? Apparently, according to Shmuel, an animal may not go out on Shabbat with a device that provides excessive security, as it is considered a burden. Rav Yosef said to him: Delete this latter statement of Shmuel due to that first one.
וּמַאי חֲזֵית דִּמְסַמֵּית הָא מִקַּמֵּי הָא? סָמִי הָא מִקַּמֵּי הָא! (דְּאַשְׁכְּחַן שְׁמוּאֵל הוּא דְּאָמַר לְנוֹי אָסוּר לְשַׁמֵּר מוּתָּר. דְּאִתְּמַר:) רַב חִיָּיא בַּר אָשֵׁי אָמַר רַב: בֵּין לְנוֹי בֵּין לְשַׁמֵּר — אָסוּר. וְרַב חִיָּיא בַּר אָבִין אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: לְנוֹי — אָסוּר, לְשַׁמֵּר — מוּתָּר.
The Gemara asks: And what did you see that led you to delete this latter statement due that first one? Delete that first statement due to this latter one. The Gemara explains: The first statement is supported as we find that Shmuel is the one who said : For beauty, it is prohibited; however, if it was placed to secure the cow, it is permitted, as it was stated that Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi said that Rav said: Whether the strap was placed for beauty, or whether it was placed to secure the cow, it is prohibited. And Rav Ḥiyya bar Avin said that Shmuel said: For beauty, it is prohibited; however, if it was placed to secure the cow, it is permitted.
מֵיתִיבִי: קְשָׁרָהּ בְּעָלֶיהָ בְּמוֹסֵרָה — כְּשֵׁרָה. וְאִי סָלְקָא דַעְתָּךְ מַשּׂאוֹי הוּא, ״אֲשֶׁר לֹא עָלָה עָלֶיהָ עוֹל״ אָמַר רַחֲמָנָא!
The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita: If its owner tied a red heifer with its reins that are attached to the bit, it remains fit for use in the purification ritual. And if it should enter your mind to say that a bit is considered a burden, why does a red heifer remain fit for use? The Torah explicitly stated: “Speak to the children of Israel, that they bring you a red heifer without defect, in which there is no blemish, and upon which never came a yoke” (Numbers 19:2). A red heifer is disqualified by a burden.
אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: בְּמוֹלִיכָהּ מֵעִיר לָעִיר. רָבָא אָמַר: שָׁאנֵי פָּרָה דְּדָמֶיהָ יְקָרִין. רָבִינָא אָמַר: בְּמוֹרֶדֶת.
Abaye said: There, the baraita is referring to the case of a red heifer whose owner is leading it from city to city. When the animal is removed from its habitat, it requires additional security. In that case, tying the heifer with its reins is conventional rather than excessive security. Therefore, the bit is not considered a burden. Rava said: A red heifer, whose monetary value is high, is different and therefore secured more carefully than other cows. Ravina said: The baraita is referring to a red heifer that is rebellious and headstrong. Therefore, it requires added security.
הַסּוּס בְּשֵׁיר וְכוּ׳. מַאי ״יוֹצְאִין״? וּמַאי ״נִמְשָׁכִין״? אָמַר רַב הוּנָא: אוֹ יוֹצְאִין כְּרוּכִין, אוֹ נִמְשָׁכִין. וּשְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר: יוֹצְאִין נִמְשָׁכִין, וְאֵין יוֹצְאִין כְּרוּכִין.
We learned in the mishna: A horse may go out with a chain around its neck, and so too, all animals that typically have chains around their necks when they go out to the public domain may go out with chains on Shabbat and may be pulled by the chains. The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of: May go out, and what is the meaning of: May be pulled? Rav Huna said: These animals may go out either with the chain wrapped around their necks as an ornament, or they may be pulled by the chain. And Shmuel said: These animals may go out pulled by the chain; however, they may not go out with the chain wrapped around their necks as an ornament.
בְּמַתְנִיתָא תָּנָא: יוֹצְאִין כְּרוּכִין לִימָּשֵׁךְ. אָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף: חֲזֵינָא לְהוּ לְעִיגְלֵי דְּבֵי רַב הוּנָא יוֹצְאִין בְּאַפְסְרֵיהֶן כְּרוּכִין בְּשַׁבָּת.
It was taught in a baraita: They may go out with the chains loosely wrapped around their necks, so that if the need arises, the animals will be able to be pulled by their chains. Rav Yosef said: I saw the calves of the house of Rav Huna go out into the public domain on Shabbat with their bits and with the reins wrapped around their necks.
כִּי אֲתָא רַב דִּימִי אָמַר רַבִּי חֲנִינָא: מוּלָאוֹת שֶׁל בֵּית רַבִּי יוֹצְאוֹת בְּאַפְסְרֵיהֶן בְּשַׁבָּת. אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ: כְּרוּכִין אוֹ נִמְשָׁכִין?
When Rav Dimi came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he said that Rabbi Ḥanina said: The mules of the house of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi go out into the public domain with their bits on Shabbat. A dilemma was raised before the Sages: Does this mean that the mules went out with their bits and reins wrapped around their necks; or, does it mean that they were pulled by the reins?
תָּא שְׁמַע, כִּי אֲתָא רַב שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר יְהוּדָה אֲמַר רַבִּי חֲנִינָא: מוּלָאוֹת שֶׁל בֵּית רַבִּי יוֹצְאוֹת בְּאַפְסְרֵיהֶן כְּרוּכִים בְּשַׁבָּת.
Come and hear a resolution to this dilemma from the following incident: When Rav Shmuel bar Yehuda came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he said that Rabbi Ḥanina said: The mules [molaot] of the house of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi went out on Shabbat with their bits with the reins wrapped around their necks.
אַמְרוּהָ רַבָּנַן קַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב אַסִּי: הָא דְּרַב שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר יְהוּדָה לָא צְרִיכָא, מִדְּרַב דִּימִי נָפְקָא. דְּאִי סָלְקָא דַעְתָּךְ דְּרַב דִּימִי ״נִמְשָׁכִין״ קָאָמַר, מִדְּרַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל נָפְקָא.
The Sages said before Rav Asi: That statement of Rav Shmuel bar Yehuda is not necessary. It may be derived from the statement of Rav Dimi. As, if it would enter your mind to say that Rav Dimi said that the mules of the house of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi went out on Shabbat pulled by their bits, it is difficult. There is nothing novel in that statement, as it may be derived from the statement that Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said.
דְּאָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: מַחְלִיפִין הָיוּ לִפְנֵי רַבִּי, שֶׁל זוֹ בָּזוֹ מַהוּ? אָמַר לְפָנָיו רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל בְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי, כָּךְ אָמַר אַבָּא: אַרְבַּע בְּהֵמוֹת יוֹצֵאת בָּאַפְסָר, הַסּוּס וְהַפֶּרֶד וְהַגָּמָל וְהַחֲמוֹר.
As Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: The students switched the details in the mishna before Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, and asked: What is the halakha with regard to this animal going out into the public domain with that which is permitted for that animal? And Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosei, said before Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi: So said father, four animals may go out with a bit: The horse, and the mule, and the camel, and the donkey. Apparently, according to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, a mule may go out on Shabbat pulled by its bit.
אֲמַר לְהוּ רַב אַסִּי: אִיצְטְרִיךְ לְהוּ. דְּאִי מִדְּרַב יְהוּדָה נָפְקָא, הֲוָה אָמֵינָא: אָמַר לְפָנָיו וְלָא קַיבְּלַהּ מִינֵּיהּ. קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן דְּרַב דִּימִי.
Rav Asi said to them: This statement of Rav Shmuel bar Yehuda is necessary, as if it were derived from the statement of Rav Yehuda, who related that which Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosei, said before Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, I would have said that Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosei, said that before him, and Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi did not accept it from him. Therefore, that statement of Rav Dimi teaches us that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi indeed accepted it from Rabbi Yishmael and his mules went out with their bits on Shabbat.
וְאִי דְּרַב דִּימִי, הֲוָה אָמֵינָא: הָנֵי מִילֵּי נִמְשָׁכִין, אֲבָל כְּרוּכִין — לָא, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן דְּרַב שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר רַב יְהוּדָה.
And if it had been derived only from the statement of Rav Dimi, I would have said that this applies only when the mule is pulled by its bit; however, if the reins are merely wrapped around the animal’s neck, no, the animal may not go out with it. Therefore, that statement of Rav Shmuel bar Rav Yehuda teaches us that the mules of the house of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi went out on Shabbat with their reins wrapped around their necks.
וּמַזִּין עֲלֵיהֶן וְטוֹבְלָן בִּמְקוֹמָן. לְמֵימְרָא דִּבְנֵי קַבּוֹלֵי טוּמְאָה נִינְהוּ? וְהָתְנַן: טַבַּעַת אָדָם — טְמֵאָה, וְטַבַּעַת בְּהֵמָה וְכֵלִים וּשְׁאָר כׇּל הַטַּבָּעוֹת —
It was further taught in our mishna: If these chains contracted ritual impurity, one may sprinkle water of purification on them and immerse them in their place on the animal. The Gemara asks: Is that to say that these chains are fit to contract ritual impurity? Didn’t we learn in a mishna: A ring worn by a person is ritually impure. However, the ring of an animal, and rings of utensils, and all other rings not worn by people
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 לָא תַּנְיָא: מַקֵּל שֶׁל בְּהֵמָה, שֶׁל מַתֶּכֶת מְקַבֵּל טוּמְאָה. מַה טַּעַם? — הוֹאִיל וְאָדָם רוֹדָהּ בָּהֶן. הָכָא נָמֵי, 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 אַמֵּי: 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 אַמֵּי כְּרַב יוֹסֵף סְבִירָא לֵיהּ, דְּאִי כְּרַבִּי יִצְחָק נַפָּחָא, דְּאָמַר: בְּבָאִין מִנּוֹי אָדָם לְנוֹי בְּהֵמָה — כֵּיוָן דְּרִיתְּכָן, עֲבַד בְּהוּ מַעֲשֶׂה וּפְרַחָה לַהּ 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: כׇּל הַכֵּלִים יוֹרְדִין לִידֵי טוּמְאָתָן בְּמַחְשָׁבָה, 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. A ritually impure vessel, once it undergoes physical change, is no longer ritually impure. Hammering the rings is an action that effects physical change. Therefore, the chain should be ritually pure without immersion.
סָבַר לַהּ כְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה דְּאָמַר מַעֲשֶׂה לְתַקֵּן לָאו מַעֲשֶׂה הוּא. דְּתַנְיָא, רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: לֹא אָמְרוּ 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 שָׁמַעְתָּ 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 כׇּל הַטַּבָּעוֹת טְהוֹרוֹת! כִּי קָאָמַר לֵיהּ אִיהוּ, נָמֵי 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 שֶׁהִתְקִינָה לַחְגּוֹר בָּהּ מׇתְנָיו וּלְקַשֵּׁר בָּהּ בֵּין כְּתֵפָיו — טְהוֹרָה, וְלֹא אָמְרוּ טְמֵאָה אֶלָּא שֶׁל אֶצְבַּע בִּלְבַד! כִּי קָאָמַר לֵיהּ אִיהוּ, נָמֵי 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, נָמֵי 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 לוֹ: שֶׁמָּא לֹא שָׁמְעַתְּ 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 חֲלוּדָה, 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 אֵינָהּ נְקוּבָה מוּתָּר לְטַלְטְלָהּ בְּשַׁבָּת, 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 תַּרְגְּמַהּ אַבָּיֵי אַלִּיבָּא דְּרָבָא — בְּגֻלְמֵי.
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.
מַתְנִי׳ חֲמוֹר יוֹצֵא בַּמַּרְדַּעַת בִּזְמַן שֶׁהִיא קְשׁוּרָה בּוֹ. זְכָרִים יוֹצְאִין לְבוּבִין. רְחֵלוֹת יוֹצְאוֹת שְׁחוּזוֹת, כְּבוּלוֹת וּכְבוּנוֹת. הָעִזִּים יוֹצְאוֹת צְרוּרוֹת. רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹסֵר בְּכוּלָּן, חוּץ מִן הָרְחֵלִין הַכְּבוּנוֹת.
MISHNA: 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.
Follow 
New to Talmud?
Check out our resources designed to help you navigate a page of Talmud – and study at the pace, level and style that fits you.
The Hadran Women’s Tapestry
Meet the diverse women learning Gemara at Hadran and hear their stories.
My Daf journey began in August 2012 after participating in the Siyum Hashas where I was blessed as an “enabler” of others. Galvanized into my own learning I recited the Hadran on Shas in January 2020 with Rabbanit Michelle. That Siyum was a highlight in my life. Now, on round two, Daf has become my spiritual anchor to which I attribute manifold blessings.
Rina Goldberg
Englewood NJ, United States
Ive been learning Gmara since 5th grade and always loved it. Have always wanted to do Daf Yomi and now with Michelle Farber’s online classes it made it much easier to do! Really enjoying the experience thank you!!
Lisa Lawrence
Neve Daniel, Israel
Retirement and Covid converged to provide me with the opportunity to commit to daily Talmud study in October 2020. I dove into the middle of Eruvin and continued to navigate Seder Moed, with Rabannit Michelle as my guide. I have developed more confidence in my learning as I completed each masechet and look forward to completing the Daf Yomi cycle so that I can begin again!
Rhona Fink
San Diego, United States
Michelle has been an inspiration for years, but I only really started this cycle after the moving and uplifting siyum in Jerusalem. It’s been an wonderful to learn and relearn the tenets of our religion and to understand how the extraordinary efforts of a band of people to preserve Judaism after the fall of the beit hamikdash is still bearing fruits today. I’m proud to be part of the chain!
Judith Weil
Raanana, Israel
Attending the Siyyum in Jerusalem 26 months ago inspired me to become part of this community of learners. So many aspects of Jewish life have been illuminated by what we have learned in Seder Moed. My day is not complete without daf Yomi. I am so grateful to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Community.
Nancy Kolodny
Newton, United States
In my Shana bet at Migdal Oz I attended the Hadran siyum hash”as. Witnessing so many women so passionate about their Torah learning and connection to God, I knew I had to begin with the coming cycle. My wedding (June 24) was two weeks before the siyum of mesechet yoma so I went a little ahead and was able to make a speech and siyum at my kiseh kallah on my wedding day!
Sharona Guggenheim Plumb
Givat Shmuel, Israel
I started learning daf in January, 2020, being inspired by watching the Siyyum Hashas in Binyanei Haumah. I wasn’t sure I would be able to keep up with the task. When I went to school, Gemara was not an option. Fast forward to March, 2022, and each day starts with the daf. The challenge is now learning the intricacies of delving into the actual learning. Hadran community, thank you!
Rochel Cheifetz
Riverdale, NY, United States
I started learning on January 5, 2020. When I complete the 7+ year cycle I will be 70 years old. I had been intimidated by those who said that I needed to study Talmud in a traditional way with a chevruta, but I decided the learning was more important to me than the method. Thankful for Daf Yomi for Women helping me catch up when I fall behind, and also being able to celebrate with each Siyum!
Pamela Elisheva
Bakersfield, United States
When I began learning Daf Yomi at the beginning of the current cycle, I was preparing for an upcoming surgery and thought that learning the Daf would be something positive I could do each day during my recovery, even if I accomplished nothing else. I had no idea what a lifeline learning the Daf would turn out to be in so many ways.
Laura Shechter
Lexington, MA, United States
At almost 70 I am just beginning my journey with Talmud and Hadran. I began not late, but right when I was called to learn. It is never too late to begin! The understanding patience of staff and participants with more experience and knowledge has been fabulous. The joy of learning never stops and for me. It is a new life, a new light, a new depth of love of The Holy One, Blessed be He.
Deborah Hoffman-Wade
Richmond, CA, United States
In early 2020, I began the process of a stem cell transplant. The required extreme isolation forced me to leave work and normal life but gave me time to delve into Jewish text study. I did not feel isolated. I began Daf Yomi at the start of this cycle, with family members joining me online from my hospital room. I’ve used my newly granted time to to engage, grow and connect through this learning.
Reena Slovin
Worcester, United States
I am grateful for the structure of the Daf Yomi. When I am freer to learn to my heart’s content, I learn other passages in addition. But even in times of difficulty, I always know that I can rely on the structure and social support of Daf Yomi learners all over the world.
I am also grateful for this forum. It is very helpful to learn with a group of enthusiastic and committed women.
Janice Block
Beit Shemesh, Israel
After experiences over the years of asking to join gemara shiurim for men and either being refused by the maggid shiur or being the only women there, sometimes behind a mechitza, I found out about Hadran sometime during the tail end of Masechet Shabbat, I think. Life has been much better since then.
Madeline Cohen
London, United Kingdom
In January 2020, my teaching partner at IDC suggested we do daf yomi. Thanks to her challenge, I started learning daily from Rabbanit Michelle. It’s a joy to be part of the Hadran community. (It’s also a tikkun: in 7th grade, my best friend and I tied for first place in a citywide gemara exam, but we weren’t invited to the celebration because girls weren’t supposed to be learning gemara).
Sara Averick
Jerusalem, Israel
I’ve been learning since January 2020, and in June I started drawing a phrase from each daf. Sometimes it’s easy (e.g. plants), sometimes it’s very hard (e.g. korbanot), and sometimes it’s loads of fun (e.g. bird racing) to find something to draw. I upload my pictures from each masechet to #DafYomiArt. I am enjoying every step of the journey.
Gila Loike
Ashdod, Israel
I began my journey two years ago at the beginning of this cycle of the daf yomi. It has been an incredible, challenging experience and has given me a new perspective of Torah Sh’baal Peh and the role it plays in our lives
linda kalish-marcus
Efrat, Israel
I never thought I’d be able to do Daf Yomi till I saw the video of Hadran’s Siyum HaShas. Now, 2 years later, I’m about to participate in Siyum Seder Mo’ed with my Hadran community. It has been an incredible privilege to learn with Rabbanit Michelle and to get to know so many caring, talented and knowledgeable women. I look forward with great anticipation and excitement to learning Seder Nashim.
Caroline Ben-Ari
Karmiel, Israel
It happened without intent (so am I yotzei?!) – I watched the women’s siyum live and was so moved by it that the next morning, I tuned in to Rabbanit Michelle’s shiur, and here I am, still learning every day, over 2 years later. Some days it all goes over my head, but others I grasp onto an idea or a story, and I ‘get it’ and that’s the best feeling in the world. So proud to be a Hadran learner.
Jeanne Yael Klempner
Zichron Yaakov, Israel
I started at the beginning of this cycle. No 1 reason, but here’s 5.
In 2019 I read about the upcoming siyum hashas.
There was a sermon at shul about how anyone can learn Talmud.
Talmud references come up when I am studying. I wanted to know more.
Yentl was on telly. Not a great movie but it’s about studying Talmud.
I went to the Hadran website: A new cycle is starting. I’m gonna do this
Denise Neapolitan
Cambridge, United Kingdom
It has been a pleasure keeping pace with this wonderful and scholarly group of women.
Janice Block
Beit Shemesh, Israel
Shabbat 52
דְּתִיתּוֹתַב דַּעְתֵּיהּ. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: חֲמוֹר שֶׁעֲסָקָיו רָעִים כְּגוֹן זֶה, מַהוּ לָצֵאת בִּפְרוּמְבְּיָא בְּשַׁבָּת? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: הָכִי אֲמַר אֲבוּךְ מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דִּשְׁמוּאֵל: הֲלָכָה כַּחֲנַנְיָא.
he will be placated and will understand that it was not my intention to disrespect him. He said to him: An undisciplined donkey whose conduct is wicked like this one that I am riding, what is the ruling with regard to having it go out with a halter on Shabbat? Typically, in order to secure a donkey, a bit suffices and it does not require a halter. A halter constitutes excessive security. However, the question is whether or not a halter that provides excessive security for a wild donkey like this one is considered a burden with which it is prohibited to go out to the public domain on Shabbat. Rabba bar Rav Huna said to him: Even if the security is considered extraneous, your father said the following in the name of Shmuel: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Ḥananya, who said that a device that provides excessive security is not considered a burden.
תָּנָא דְּבֵי מְנַשְּׁיָא: עֵז שֶׁחָקַק לָהּ בֵּין קַרְנֶיהָ יוֹצְאָה בְּאַפְסָר בְּשַׁבָּת. בָּעֵי רַב יוֹסֵף: תָּחַב לָהּ בִּזְקָנָהּ מַהוּ? כֵּיוָן דְּאִי מְנַתַּח לַהּ כָּאֵיב לַהּ לָא אָתְיָא לְנַתּוֹחֵהּ, אוֹ דִילְמָא זִימְנִין דְּרָפֵי וְנָפֵיל, וְאָתֵי לְאֵתוּיֵי אַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת בִּרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים. תֵּיקוּ.
A Sage of the school of Menashiya taught a baraita: A goat in which one carved out a hole between its horns may go out with a bit on Shabbat. Because the bit is inserted through the hole, it will not become detached. Rav Yosef raised a dilemma: What is the ruling in a case where one inserted the bit through the goat’s beard? The Gemara explains the dilemma: Is the halakha that since, if the goat attempts to sever itself from the bit, it would cause it pain because the bit is attached to its beard, and therefore it will not come to sever it and the bit will remain in place? Or perhaps is the halakha that sometimes the knot will loosen and the bit will fall, and the goat’s owner will come to bring the bit and carry it four cubits in the public domain? No resolution was found to this dilemma. Let it stand unresolved.
תְּנַן הָתָם: וְלֹא בִּרְצוּעָה שֶׁבֵּין קַרְנֶיהָ. אָמַר (לֵיהּ) רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה בַּר אַבָּא: פְּלִיגִי בַּהּ רַב וּשְׁמוּאֵל. חַד אָמַר: בֵּין לְנוֹי בֵּין לְשַׁמֵּר — אָסוּר. וְחַד אָמַר: לְנוֹי — אָסוּר, וּלְשַׁמֵּר — מוּתָּר.
We learned there in a mishna: And neither may a cow go out with a strap between its horns. Rabbi Yirmeya bar Abba said: Rav and Shmuel disagreed about this: One said: Whether it was placed for beauty, as an ornament, or whether it was placed to secure the cow, it is prohibited for the cow to go out with the strap between its horns. And the other one said: For beauty, it is prohibited; however, if it was placed to secure the cow, it is permitted.
אָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף: תִּסְתַּיֵּים דִּשְׁמוּאֵל הוּא דְּאָמַר לְנוֹי אָסוּר, לְשַׁמֵּר מוּתָּר. דְּאָמַר רַב הוּנָא בַּר חִיָּיא אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: הֲלָכָה כַּחֲנַנְיָא.
Rav Yosef said: Conclude that Shmuel is the one who said that if the strap was placed for beauty it is prohibited; however, if it was placed to secure the cow it is permitted. As Rav Huna bar Ḥiyya said that Shmuel said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Ḥananya: A device that provides excessive security is not considered a burden. Therefore, an animal may go out on Shabbat with straps that provide excessive security.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: אַדְּרַבָּה, תִּסְתַּיֵּים דִּשְׁמוּאֵל הוּא דְּאָמַר בֵּין לְנוֹי בֵּין לְשַׁמֵּר — אָסוּר. דְּאָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: מַחְלִיפִין לִפְנֵי רַבִּי, שֶׁל זוֹ בְּזוֹ מַהוּ? אָמַר לְפָנָיו רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל בְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי, כָּךְ אָמַר אַבָּא: אַרְבַּע בְּהֵמוֹת יוֹצְאוֹת בְּאַפְסָר — הַסּוּס הַפֶּרֶד וְהַגָּמָל וְהַחֲמוֹר. לָאו לְמַעוֹטֵי גָּמָל בַּחֲטָם? סָמִי הָא מִקַּמֵּי הָא.
Abaye said to him: On the contrary, conclude that Shmuel is the one who said that whether it was placed for beauty, as an ornament, or whether it was placed to secure the cow, it is prohibited. As Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: The students exchanged the details in the mishna before Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and asked: What is the halakha with regard to this animal going out into the public domain with that which is permitted for that animal? And Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosei, said before Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi: So said father, Rabbi Yosei: Four animals may go out with a bit: The horse, the mule, and the camel, and the donkey. Does this list not come to exclude a camel going out with a nose ring, as a nose ring provides excessive security beyond that required for a camel? Apparently, according to Shmuel, an animal may not go out on Shabbat with a device that provides excessive security, as it is considered a burden. Rav Yosef said to him: Delete this latter statement of Shmuel due to that first one.
וּמַאי חֲזֵית דִּמְסַמֵּית הָא מִקַּמֵּי הָא? סָמִי הָא מִקַּמֵּי הָא! (דְּאַשְׁכְּחַן שְׁמוּאֵל הוּא דְּאָמַר לְנוֹי אָסוּר לְשַׁמֵּר מוּתָּר. דְּאִתְּמַר:) רַב חִיָּיא בַּר אָשֵׁי אָמַר רַב: בֵּין לְנוֹי בֵּין לְשַׁמֵּר — אָסוּר. וְרַב חִיָּיא בַּר אָבִין אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: לְנוֹי — אָסוּר, לְשַׁמֵּר — מוּתָּר.
The Gemara asks: And what did you see that led you to delete this latter statement due that first one? Delete that first statement due to this latter one. The Gemara explains: The first statement is supported as we find that Shmuel is the one who said : For beauty, it is prohibited; however, if it was placed to secure the cow, it is permitted, as it was stated that Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi said that Rav said: Whether the strap was placed for beauty, or whether it was placed to secure the cow, it is prohibited. And Rav Ḥiyya bar Avin said that Shmuel said: For beauty, it is prohibited; however, if it was placed to secure the cow, it is permitted.
מֵיתִיבִי: קְשָׁרָהּ בְּעָלֶיהָ בְּמוֹסֵרָה — כְּשֵׁרָה. וְאִי סָלְקָא דַעְתָּךְ מַשּׂאוֹי הוּא, ״אֲשֶׁר לֹא עָלָה עָלֶיהָ עוֹל״ אָמַר רַחֲמָנָא!
The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita: If its owner tied a red heifer with its reins that are attached to the bit, it remains fit for use in the purification ritual. And if it should enter your mind to say that a bit is considered a burden, why does a red heifer remain fit for use? The Torah explicitly stated: “Speak to the children of Israel, that they bring you a red heifer without defect, in which there is no blemish, and upon which never came a yoke” (Numbers 19:2). A red heifer is disqualified by a burden.
אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: בְּמוֹלִיכָהּ מֵעִיר לָעִיר. רָבָא אָמַר: שָׁאנֵי פָּרָה דְּדָמֶיהָ יְקָרִין. רָבִינָא אָמַר: בְּמוֹרֶדֶת.
Abaye said: There, the baraita is referring to the case of a red heifer whose owner is leading it from city to city. When the animal is removed from its habitat, it requires additional security. In that case, tying the heifer with its reins is conventional rather than excessive security. Therefore, the bit is not considered a burden. Rava said: A red heifer, whose monetary value is high, is different and therefore secured more carefully than other cows. Ravina said: The baraita is referring to a red heifer that is rebellious and headstrong. Therefore, it requires added security.
הַסּוּס בְּשֵׁיר וְכוּ׳. מַאי ״יוֹצְאִין״? וּמַאי ״נִמְשָׁכִין״? אָמַר רַב הוּנָא: אוֹ יוֹצְאִין כְּרוּכִין, אוֹ נִמְשָׁכִין. וּשְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר: יוֹצְאִין נִמְשָׁכִין, וְאֵין יוֹצְאִין כְּרוּכִין.
We learned in the mishna: A horse may go out with a chain around its neck, and so too, all animals that typically have chains around their necks when they go out to the public domain may go out with chains on Shabbat and may be pulled by the chains. The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of: May go out, and what is the meaning of: May be pulled? Rav Huna said: These animals may go out either with the chain wrapped around their necks as an ornament, or they may be pulled by the chain. And Shmuel said: These animals may go out pulled by the chain; however, they may not go out with the chain wrapped around their necks as an ornament.
בְּמַתְנִיתָא תָּנָא: יוֹצְאִין כְּרוּכִין לִימָּשֵׁךְ. אָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף: חֲזֵינָא לְהוּ לְעִיגְלֵי דְּבֵי רַב הוּנָא יוֹצְאִין בְּאַפְסְרֵיהֶן כְּרוּכִין בְּשַׁבָּת.
It was taught in a baraita: They may go out with the chains loosely wrapped around their necks, so that if the need arises, the animals will be able to be pulled by their chains. Rav Yosef said: I saw the calves of the house of Rav Huna go out into the public domain on Shabbat with their bits and with the reins wrapped around their necks.
כִּי אֲתָא רַב דִּימִי אָמַר רַבִּי חֲנִינָא: מוּלָאוֹת שֶׁל בֵּית רַבִּי יוֹצְאוֹת בְּאַפְסְרֵיהֶן בְּשַׁבָּת. אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ: כְּרוּכִין אוֹ נִמְשָׁכִין?
When Rav Dimi came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he said that Rabbi Ḥanina said: The mules of the house of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi go out into the public domain with their bits on Shabbat. A dilemma was raised before the Sages: Does this mean that the mules went out with their bits and reins wrapped around their necks; or, does it mean that they were pulled by the reins?
תָּא שְׁמַע, כִּי אֲתָא רַב שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר יְהוּדָה אֲמַר רַבִּי חֲנִינָא: מוּלָאוֹת שֶׁל בֵּית רַבִּי יוֹצְאוֹת בְּאַפְסְרֵיהֶן כְּרוּכִים בְּשַׁבָּת.
Come and hear a resolution to this dilemma from the following incident: When Rav Shmuel bar Yehuda came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he said that Rabbi Ḥanina said: The mules [molaot] of the house of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi went out on Shabbat with their bits with the reins wrapped around their necks.
אַמְרוּהָ רַבָּנַן קַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב אַסִּי: הָא דְּרַב שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר יְהוּדָה לָא צְרִיכָא, מִדְּרַב דִּימִי נָפְקָא. דְּאִי סָלְקָא דַעְתָּךְ דְּרַב דִּימִי ״נִמְשָׁכִין״ קָאָמַר, מִדְּרַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל נָפְקָא.
The Sages said before Rav Asi: That statement of Rav Shmuel bar Yehuda is not necessary. It may be derived from the statement of Rav Dimi. As, if it would enter your mind to say that Rav Dimi said that the mules of the house of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi went out on Shabbat pulled by their bits, it is difficult. There is nothing novel in that statement, as it may be derived from the statement that Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said.
דְּאָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: מַחְלִיפִין הָיוּ לִפְנֵי רַבִּי, שֶׁל זוֹ בָּזוֹ מַהוּ? אָמַר לְפָנָיו רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל בְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי, כָּךְ אָמַר אַבָּא: אַרְבַּע בְּהֵמוֹת יוֹצֵאת בָּאַפְסָר, הַסּוּס וְהַפֶּרֶד וְהַגָּמָל וְהַחֲמוֹר.
As Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: The students switched the details in the mishna before Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, and asked: What is the halakha with regard to this animal going out into the public domain with that which is permitted for that animal? And Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosei, said before Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi: So said father, four animals may go out with a bit: The horse, and the mule, and the camel, and the donkey. Apparently, according to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, a mule may go out on Shabbat pulled by its bit.
אֲמַר לְהוּ רַב אַסִּי: אִיצְטְרִיךְ לְהוּ. דְּאִי מִדְּרַב יְהוּדָה נָפְקָא, הֲוָה אָמֵינָא: אָמַר לְפָנָיו וְלָא קַיבְּלַהּ מִינֵּיהּ. קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן דְּרַב דִּימִי.
Rav Asi said to them: This statement of Rav Shmuel bar Yehuda is necessary, as if it were derived from the statement of Rav Yehuda, who related that which Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosei, said before Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, I would have said that Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosei, said that before him, and Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi did not accept it from him. Therefore, that statement of Rav Dimi teaches us that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi indeed accepted it from Rabbi Yishmael and his mules went out with their bits on Shabbat.
וְאִי דְּרַב דִּימִי, הֲוָה אָמֵינָא: הָנֵי מִילֵּי נִמְשָׁכִין, אֲבָל כְּרוּכִין — לָא, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן דְּרַב שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר רַב יְהוּדָה.
And if it had been derived only from the statement of Rav Dimi, I would have said that this applies only when the mule is pulled by its bit; however, if the reins are merely wrapped around the animal’s neck, no, the animal may not go out with it. Therefore, that statement of Rav Shmuel bar Rav Yehuda teaches us that the mules of the house of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi went out on Shabbat with their reins wrapped around their necks.
וּמַזִּין עֲלֵיהֶן וְטוֹבְלָן בִּמְקוֹמָן. לְמֵימְרָא דִּבְנֵי קַבּוֹלֵי טוּמְאָה נִינְהוּ? וְהָתְנַן: טַבַּעַת אָדָם — טְמֵאָה, וְטַבַּעַת בְּהֵמָה וְכֵלִים וּשְׁאָר כׇּל הַטַּבָּעוֹת —
It was further taught in our mishna: If these chains contracted ritual impurity, one may sprinkle water of purification on them and immerse them in their place on the animal. The Gemara asks: Is that to say that these chains are fit to contract ritual impurity? Didn’t we learn in a mishna: A ring worn by a person is ritually impure. However, the ring of an animal, and rings of utensils, and all other rings not worn by people
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 לָא תַּנְיָא: מַקֵּל שֶׁל בְּהֵמָה, שֶׁל מַתֶּכֶת מְקַבֵּל טוּמְאָה. מַה טַּעַם? — הוֹאִיל וְאָדָם רוֹדָהּ בָּהֶן. הָכָא נָמֵי, 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 אַמֵּי: 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 אַמֵּי כְּרַב יוֹסֵף סְבִירָא לֵיהּ, דְּאִי כְּרַבִּי יִצְחָק נַפָּחָא, דְּאָמַר: בְּבָאִין מִנּוֹי אָדָם לְנוֹי בְּהֵמָה — כֵּיוָן דְּרִיתְּכָן, עֲבַד בְּהוּ מַעֲשֶׂה וּפְרַחָה לַהּ 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: כׇּל הַכֵּלִים יוֹרְדִין לִידֵי טוּמְאָתָן בְּמַחְשָׁבָה, 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. A ritually impure vessel, once it undergoes physical change, is no longer ritually impure. Hammering the rings is an action that effects physical change. Therefore, the chain should be ritually pure without immersion.
סָבַר לַהּ כְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה דְּאָמַר מַעֲשֶׂה לְתַקֵּן לָאו מַעֲשֶׂה הוּא. דְּתַנְיָא, רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: לֹא אָמְרוּ 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 שָׁמַעְתָּ 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 כׇּל הַטַּבָּעוֹת טְהוֹרוֹת! כִּי קָאָמַר לֵיהּ אִיהוּ, נָמֵי 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 שֶׁהִתְקִינָה לַחְגּוֹר בָּהּ מׇתְנָיו וּלְקַשֵּׁר בָּהּ בֵּין כְּתֵפָיו — טְהוֹרָה, וְלֹא אָמְרוּ טְמֵאָה אֶלָּא שֶׁל אֶצְבַּע בִּלְבַד! כִּי קָאָמַר לֵיהּ אִיהוּ, נָמֵי 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, נָמֵי 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 לוֹ: שֶׁמָּא לֹא שָׁמְעַתְּ 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 חֲלוּדָה, 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 אֵינָהּ נְקוּבָה מוּתָּר לְטַלְטְלָהּ בְּשַׁבָּת, 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 תַּרְגְּמַהּ אַבָּיֵי אַלִּיבָּא דְּרָבָא — בְּגֻלְמֵי.
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.
מַתְנִי׳ חֲמוֹר יוֹצֵא בַּמַּרְדַּעַת בִּזְמַן שֶׁהִיא קְשׁוּרָה בּוֹ. זְכָרִים יוֹצְאִין לְבוּבִין. רְחֵלוֹת יוֹצְאוֹת שְׁחוּזוֹת, כְּבוּלוֹת וּכְבוּנוֹת. הָעִזִּים יוֹצְאוֹת צְרוּרוֹת. רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹסֵר בְּכוּלָּן, חוּץ מִן הָרְחֵלִין הַכְּבוּנוֹת.
MISHNA: 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.
Follow
