Previous daf

1)

(a) A goat is not included in the list of animals allowed to go out with reigns, simply because it is *not* - due to its slender neck, which, in addition to the fact that goats tend to move their necks quite violently, in an effort to escape from the noose around its neck, it is likely to succeed, leaving the rope in the owner's hand. This leaves us with the concern that he is may carry home.

(b) One *is* however, permitted to allow the goat to go out with the reigns, if it is tied to a niche in its horns, thus ensuring that it does not slip out.

(c) The Gemara asks whether, if the rope is tied to its beard, one may allow the goat to go into the street, since it is less likely to struggle to free itself, on account of the pain; but, on the other hand, the rope slips more easily from the beard.

(a) It is not permitted to allow one's cow to go out wearing a colored *ornamental* strap.

(b) The reason that Rav forbids a cow to go with a colored strap when it is worn for guarding purposes (i.e. for the owner to hold it when they walk together in the street), is because a cow does not require guarding, and Rav forbids an animal to go out with something to guard it, when it is not necessary.

(c) The inference that a camel should not be allowed to go out with a metal ring in its nose, contradicts Shmuel's statement that the Halachah is like Chananya, who is lenient with regard to the Sha'aleh of excessive guarding.

(d) The Gemara favors the second statement of Shmuel, because in a third statement, Shmuel specifically permits a cow with a colored strap to go out on Shabbos, when it is for guarding purposes - bearing out his *second* ruling, to the exclusion of the *first*.

(a) If excessive guarding was considered a burden, then how could the Beraisa declare a Parah Adumah valid, when a rope has been tied around its neck? We know that a Parah Adumah that has carried a burden, becomes Pasul.

(b) The Beraisa is either speaking about a Parah Adumah that he is leading from one town to another - in which case, it requires more careful guarding than usual, because of its tendency to go to the side of the inter-city path to graze; or because by virtue of its high price, the Parah Adumah requires more guarding than ordinary cows; or the Beraisa is dealing specifically with a cow that has rebelled, which needs special guarding.

(a) 've'Chol Ba'alei ha'Shir, Yotz'in be'Shir, ve'Nimshachin be'Shir' either means that animals that tend to wear a ring (with a rope attached) may go out either with the rope wound around its neck (as an ornament, since it is normal for the animal to do this) or when it is being drawn by the rope; or it can mean that those animals may *only* go out when they are being drawn by the rope, but not when it is wound around their necks.

(b) The Beraisa, (like the first opinion in the previous answer) also permits them to go out with the rope wound around their necks, but it adds the proviso that the rope must be loose, so that, should the need arise, the owner will be able to grab hold of it to prevent the animal from running away.

(a) Rav Dimi's testimony that Rebbi's mules used to go out with their reigns, turned out to be a support for Rav Huna (against Shmuel), who maintains that one may even allow one's animals to go out with the reigns wound around their necks, because that is, in fact, what Rebbi allowed his mules to do.

(b) The Gemara initially thought that Rav Dimi can only be coming to inform us that Rebbi mules used to go with their reigns wound around their necks. Why?
Because if it was to inform us that Rebbi permitted mules to go with reigns (despite the fact that it is an excessive form of guarding), we know that already from the testimony of Rebbi Yishmael b'Rebbi Yossi, who told Shmuel that his father used to allow that.

(c) In fact, we would not have known that mules are permitted, from Rebbi Yishmael b'Rebbi Yossi's testimony alone. Why not?
Because who says that Shmuel accepted his testimony? Consequently, we would need Rav Dimi to inform us that even *mules* may go out with reigns; in which case, we now need Rav Shmuel bar Yehudah to teach us that Rebbi even permitted it when the reigns were wound around their necks.

6)

(a) We have learnt in a Mishnah in Kelim, that rings which serve animals or vessels are not subject to Tum'ah. In that case, why should the rings around the necks of the animals require Tevilah and Haza'ah?

(b) This does not mean that the rings are Tahor even whilst they are attached to the vessel, since we have learnt elsewhere that handles of vessels are Tamei together with the parent vessel; since, as long as the handle is attached to a vessel, it is considered part of the vessel.

(c) Rav Yosef explains that, although rings that serve vessels remain Tahor, that does not apply here, becauseit is *the owner* who uses the ring to pull the animal; that makes it a ring which serves a person, which *is* subject to Tum'ah.
He proves this from a Beraisa, which declares Tamei the metal stick of an animal, whose function is to serve the animal, yet it is subject to Tum'ah, because it is the owner who uses it to strike the animal.

(a) 'be'she'Rischan' means that the ring was beaten to widen the size of the hole, in which case, it fits loosely onto the neck-ring, and is no longer a Chatzitzah.

(b) According to Rav Yitzchak, no Tashmish Beheimah is subject to Tum'ah (even if it the owner who uses it). In that case, when the owner performed the act of beating the ring, rendering it unfit for Tashmish Adam in the process, why should the ring remain Tamei (since we have learnt that an act that one performs to change a K'li, remove the Din of K'li from the object, which, consequently, is no longer subject to Tum'ah)?
According to Rav Yosef, however, who holds that, even if the main function is to serve an animal, it is subject to Tum'ah because a person pulls it, this will not be a Kashya, since that usage remains functional.

(c) Rav Ami can well hold like Rav Yitzchak, concludes the Gemara, because when the Mishnah in Kelim rules that an act removes from the object the Din of a K'li, that is only if the act performed was one of destruction. Here, he beat the ring, not in order to destroy it, but to rectify it. Therefore, it retains its original title of Tashmish Adam (despite the fact that, in the process, he has rendered the ring untit for Tashmish Adam).

(d) A vessel becomes Tamei with Machshavah alone - a piece of leather, for example, which stands to be fashioned (and is therefore not subject to Tum'ah - since it is not a finished object), becomes subject to Tum'ah the moment the owner decides to retain it as it is - e.g. as a mat. It will not however, lose its Din Tum'ah, by a second decision to fashion the leather into another object. For that, it will require an act - i.e. as soon as he begins to shape the K'li that he intends to make.

(a) The Beraisa establishes the Mishnah by wide rings, where there is a slight space between the ring and the neck-ring, so that the Kashya is non-existent.

(b) A ring worn on the finger is Tahor, when it is made of corral-wood - even if the signet part of the ring is made of metal. The reason for this is because it does not have a section to hold liquid, and flat wooden vessels are not subject to Tum'ah.

(c) When Rebbi Elazar said 'Da ve'Da Achas Hi', he was referring to *metal* (finger) rings - all of which are Tamei.

(d) As far as Shabbos is concerned, there is a difference between a ring with a signet, and one without. This difference will be clarified in the following Perek.

(a) Abaye, quoting Rava, explained that needles without holes are only Tahor, as long as they have not been completed. This is because, normally, needles stand to have a hole punched into them. Consequently, a needle without a hole is considered an unfinished product, and is Tahor - since the Torah writes in Bamidbar (with regard to Tum'ah) "Kol K'li *Ma'aseh*". But a completed needle that has no hole in it - because it is intended to be used as a pin, *is* subject to Tum'ah; and it is with regard to a completed needle that Rebbi Elazar said 'Da ve'Da Achas Hi'- meaning whether it has a hole in it or not, it is subject to Tum'ah.

(b) By Shabbos, the Torah does not write 'Ma'aseh', so any K'li which is fit to be used as it is, even though it still lacks completion (such as a needle into which the hole has not yet been punched), has the Din of a K'li, and is not Muktzah.

(a) A donkey may go out with a saddle-cloth which has been tied (when, we shall see in the Gemara).

(b) Rebbi Yehudah permits a donkey to go out with its teats tied, provided they have been tied to dry up the milk (because then he will tie them well, and they will not fall off); but not to prevent the milk from dripping out and going to waste (because then, he does not tie them so well, in which case, they are likely to fall off, and he may come to carry them - See Rashi, Amud 2, d.h. 'Lechalev').

(c) They would tie the teats to dry up the milk, either so that the goat should become pregnant, or to improve the meat-quality of its breasts.

(d) Rebbi Yossi considers all the cases in the Mishnah to be carrying, and are therefore Asur min ha'Torah (except for 'Kevunos', which is the only case which is truly for the sake of the beauty of the sheep['s wool]). Whereas the Tana Kama does not consider them to be carrying. (Rebbi Yehudah holds in principle, like the Tana Kama, only he decrees in a case when the bag is not tied on properly.