Ask A Question about the Daf

Previous daf

Shabbos 52

1) HALACHAH: AN ANIMAL'S ATTIRE AND "SHEMIRAH YESEIRAH"

OPINIONS: There is a Machlokes in the Gemara whether an item which provides more-than-necessary restraint or protection for an animal is considered attire (and it is permitted for the animal to go out with it on Shabbos) or a load (and it is not permitted for the animal to go out with it). What is the Halachah?

(a) The ROSH, RABEINU CHANANEL, RIF, and RAMBAM rule like Rav, who is stringent and says that any attire which provides over-protection is considered a load and is forbidden. Their proof that the Halachah is like Rav is that all of the Amora'im, who answer why the reins upon a Parah Adumah are not considered a load, apparently agree with Rav.

(b) The RA'AVAD cited by the RASHBA and RAN explains that in this case, we rule like Shmuel who is lenient, and letting the animal go out with attire which provides over-protection is permitted. The reason the Halachah is like Shmuel is because we find that Rabah Bar Rav Huna ruled like Shmuel (in the incident with Levi's donkey).

(c) The BA'AL HA'MA'OR (according to the RAN's understanding) says that in one respect, the Halachah is like Rav that an animal may not go out with an item which provides too much protection. However, the Halachah is also like Chananya and Rabah Bar Rav Huna, who permit a cat to go out with a rope collar, although it is considered extra protection. The reason for this is that a rope collar for a cat is the type of restraint that *some* people use all the time for their cats, and therefore it is not considered a load (even though it provides more protection than necessary). It was in such a case that Rabah Bar Rav Huna permitted an animal to go out with extra protection.

HALACHAH: The Shulchan Aruch (305:17) rules that Shemirah Yeseirah is prohibited and a cow may not be taken out with a rope around its neck, like opinion (a).

52b

QUESTION: RASHI (DH b'Va'in) explains that if one makes a man's ornament, such as a ring, into an ornament for an animal (such as a ring to fasten its collar), and it was Tamei before it was made into an animal's ornament, it retains its Tum'ah even when it is placed on the animal.

Rashi emphasizes that the ring was Tamei before it was put on the animal, because, apparently, after it becomes an animal's ornament it no longer can become Tamei. But if so, even if it is already Tamei, when it becomes an animal's ornament it should lose its previous Tum'ah, since an animal's ornament cannot become Tamei! And if, on the other hand, it can become Tamei even after turning it into an animal's ornament, then why does Rashi require that the ring become Tamei *before* it was put on the animal?

ANSWERS:

(a) TOSFOS (52a, DH b'Va'in) argues with Rashi and says that when the ring is made into an animal's ornament, it still can become Tamei (that is, it retains the status of an ornament of a man, since no physical change was made to it). It can indeed become Tamei even when it is on the animal.

(b) The MAGINEI SHLOMO and P'NEI YEHOSHUA defend Rashi's explanation. They write that the Gemara later concludes that the case under discussion is where one *did* make a physical change to the ring, but the change was a *constructive* one (i.e., it made the man's ring into a usable ring for an animal). In such a case, the Gemara explains, changing the ring physically does not cause it to become Tahor (according to Rebbi Yehudah).

RASHI understood that even according to Rebbi Yehudah, who says that a constructive change to the item does not make it Tahor, this only means that a constructive change cannot *remove Tum'ah that was there already*. However, a constructive change *does* prevent the item from being Mekabel Tum'ah in the future -- the ring, in our case, is now defined as an animal ring and not a man's ring (and an animal ring cannot become Tamei).

The reason for this distinction, it would seem, is that in order to make a Tamei item Tahor, one must *break* it, and a constructive change is not called "breaking" it. However, in order to *prevent* it from becoming Tamei, it is only necessary to give the item a new status. Even a constructive change gives an item a *new status*; therefore, if a person-ring was made into an animal-ring it cannot become Tamei *in the future*. This is why Rashi says that the ring became Tamei *before* it was made into an animal's ornament (That is, Rashi wanted to explain the Gemara in a manner consistent with the Gemara's conclusion).

QUESTION: The Gemara says that a ring made of "Almog" with a metal signet cannot become Tamei. RASHI says that the reason is because it is "Peshutei Kli Etz," a wooden item with no receptacle, which cannot become Tamei.

Why does Rashi have to say that it does not become Tamei because it is a "Peshutei Kli Etz?" "Almog," Rashi says, is "Atzei Almogim," which the Gemara (Rosh Hashanah 23a, Bava Basra 80b; see Rashbam, Bava Basra 81a) and the Bartenura (Keilim 13:6) explain to mean *coral*. The Mishnah (Keilim 17:13) tells us that everything that grows in the sea is Tahor. The Rambam (Hilchos Keilim 1:3), citing the Toras Kohanim, writes that this refers not only to living creatures in the sea such as fish, but also to seaweed that grows in the sea. Coral should be no different from seaweed -- it should not be Mekabel Tum'ah because it grows in the sea! If so, why does Rashi say that it is Tahor because it is *Peshutei Kli Etz*?

(a) The TIFERES YISRAEL and SIDREI TAHAROS (Kelim 13:6) explain that the coral is attached to the earth at the *bottom* of the sea. Therefore, it is considered a tree. The seaweed that is Tahor is a plant that grows while drifting in the water.

(b) The SIDREI TAHAROS cites an original explanation from the YESHU'OS YISRAEL. The Mishnah (Kelim 17:13) states that if one attaches something that is Mekabel Tum'ah to something that grew in the sea, the item that grew in the sea can now be Mekabel Tum'ah because of that attachment. Perhaps Rashi held that when one attaches something to it, the thing that grew in the sea does not take on the properties of the attached object, but rather the attachment turns the sea object into a regular land object, so to speak. Since our case is dealing with a metal signet attached to a ring made of coral, the metal signet turns the coral into a land object, so that it can now be Mekabel Tum'ah. However, the coral does not become like the metal that it is attached to. Rather, it is considered like *coral* that grew on dry land, and is grouped with wooden utensils. Therefore, it would have been Mekabel Tum'ah if not for the reason of "Peshutei Kli Etz." (See Sidrei Taharos ibid., though, who finds flaws in this reasoning.)