Shabbat 104

טהורות

are clean!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because they do not rank either as utensils or ornaments, v. Kel. XIII. ');">¹</span>

א"ר יצחק (נפחא) בבאין מנוי אדם לנוי בהמה

— Said R. Isaac: It [our Mishnah] refers to such as pass from [being] men's ornaments to [become] animals' ornaments;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And they had become unclean as human ornaments. But when they are animals' ornaments they cannot become unclean, though they retain the defilement contracted before. ');">²</span>

ורב יוסף אמר הואיל ואדם מושך בהם את הבהמה מי לא תניא מקל של בהמה של מתכת מקבל טומאה מה טעם הואיל ואדם רודה בהן ה"נ הואיל ואדם מושך בהן:

while R. Joseph said: [They<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The appurtenance mentioned in our Mishnah. ');">³</span>

וטובלן במקומן: והאיכא חציצה

become unclean] because a man leads the animal by them. [For] was it not taught: An animal's staff<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' With which it is beaten. ');">⁴</span>

א"ר אמי בשריתכן

of metal<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Flat wooden implements are not susceptible to defilement. ');">⁵</span>

לימא ר' אמי כרב יוסף סבירא ליה דאי כר' יצחק (נפחא) דאמר בבאין מנוי אדם לנוי בהמה כיון דריתכן עבד בהו מעשה ופרחה לה טומאה מינייהו

is susceptible to uncleanness.' What is the reason? Since a man beats [the animal] with it. So here too; [they are unclean,] because a man leads [the animals] by them.

דתנן כל הכלים יורדין לידי טומאתן במחשבה ואין עולין מטומאתן אלא בשינוי מעשה

AND THEY MAY BE IMMERSED IN THEIR PLACE. But there is an intervention?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Nothing must come between the object that is immersed and the water; but here the neck of the animal intervenes. ');">⁶</span>

סבר לה כרבי יהודה דאמר מעשה לתקן לאו מעשה הוא דתניא ר' יהודה אומר לא אמר שינוי מעשה לתקן אלא לקלקל

— Said R. Ammi: It means that he beat them out.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. the rings, halters, etc., were beaten thin, so that they fit loosely about the animal and leave room for the water to touch it on all sides. ');">⁷</span>

במתניתא תני במחוללין

Shall we say that R. Ammi holds as R. Joseph? For if as R. Isaac, who maintained that it refers to such as pass from [being] men's ornaments to [become] animals' ornaments; since he beat them out, he has performed an act, and their uncleanness vanishes. For we learnt: All utensils enter upon their uncleanness by intention, but are relieved from their uncleanness only by a change-effecting act!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Utensils become unclean only from when they are quite finished for use; if they still require smoothing, scraping, etc., they are not liable to uncleanness, unless their owner declares his intention to use them as they are. On the other hand, having done so, it is not enough that he subsequently declares that he will not use them, in order to relieve them from their susceptibility to defilement, unless he actually begins smoothing them. Or, if the utensils are unclean, it is insufficient for their owner to state that he will not use them any more, so that they should lose the status of utensils and become clean, but must render them unfit for use by an act, e.g., break or make a hole in them. ');">⁸</span>

שאל תלמיד אחד מגליל העליון את ר"א שמעתי שחולקין בין טבעת לטבעת אמר לו שמא לא שמעת אלא לענין שבת דאי לענין טומאה דא ודא חדא היא

— He holds as R. Judah, who maintained, An act to adapt [an object] is not [considered] an act.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To annul the status of a utensil. Hence he can agree with R. Isaac in the explanation of the Mishnah. ');">⁹</span>

ולענין טומאה דא ודא אחת היא והתנן טבעת אדם טמאה וטבעת בהמה וכלים ושאר כל הטבעות טהורות כי קאמר ליה איהו נמי דאדם קאמר ליה

For it was taught: R. Judah said: A change-effecting act was not mentioned<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In this connection. ');">¹⁰</span>

ודאדם דא ודא אחת היא והתניא טבעת שהתקינה לחגור בה מתניו ולקשר בה בין כתפיו טהורה ולא אמרו טמאה אלא של אצבע בלבד כי קאמר ליה איהו נמי דאצבע קאמר ליה

where it adapts [the object], save where it spoils it. In a Baraitha it was taught: It [our Mishnah] refers to [chains] with movable links.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Loosely joined and fitting roomily round the animal's neck, so that the water can enter. ');">¹¹</span>

ודאצבע דא ודא אחת היא והתנן טבעת של מתכת וחותמה של אלמוג טמאה היא של אלמוג וחותמה של מתכת טהורה כי קאמר ליה איהו נמי כולה של מתכת קאמר ליה

A certain disciple from Upper Galilee asked R. Eleazar: I have heard that a distinction is drawn between one ring and another?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In respect to what is that drawn? ');">¹²</span>

ועוד שאל שמעתי שחולקין בין מחט למחט אמר ליה שמא לא שמעת אלא לענין שבת דאי לענין טומאה דא ודא אחת היא

Perhaps you heard it only in reference to the Sabbath;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Where a distinction is made between a signet ring and an ordinary one; v. infra 59a. ');">¹³</span>

ולענין טומאה דא ודא אחת היא והתנן מחט שניטל חורה או עוקצה טהורה כי קאמר ליה בשלימה

for if in connection with uncleanness, they are all alike.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'this and this are one'. ');">¹⁴</span>

ובשלימה דא ודא אחת היא והתנן מחט שהעלתה חלודה אם מעכב את התפירה טהורה ואם לאו טמאה ואמרי דבי ר' ינאי והוא שרישומה ניכר כי קאמר ליה בשיפא קאמר לי'

Now, in connection with uncleanness, are they all alike? Surely we learnt: A man's ring is unclean, but the rings of animals and utensils and all other rings are clean.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra 52b. ');">¹⁵</span>

ובשיפא דא ודא אחת היא והתניא מחט בין נקובה בין אינה נקובה מותר לטלטלה בשבת ולא אמרינן נקובה אלא לענין טומאה בלבד

— He<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Eleazar. ');">¹⁶</span>

הא תרגמא אביי אליבא דרבא בגלמי:

too was referring to men's [rings]. And are all men's [rings] alike? Surely it was taught: A ring made to gird one's loins therewith or to fasten [the clothes about] the shoulders is clean, and only a finger [ring] was declared to be unclean! — He too was referring to finger rings. And are all finger rings alike? Surely we learnt: If the ring is of metal and its signet is of coral,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Probably a species of cedar-tree. ');">¹⁷</span>

<big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> חמור יוצא במרדעת בזמן שהיא קשורה בו זכרים יוצאין לבובין רחלות יוצאות שחוזות כבולות וכבונות העזים יוצאות צרורות רבי יוסי אוסר בכולן חוץ מן הרחלין הכבונות

It Is unclean; if it is of coral while the signet is of metal, it is clean.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Only a metal ring becomes unclean, the matter being determined by the ring itself, not the signet. This shows that a distinction is drawn also in connection with uncleanness between finger ring and finger ring. ');">¹⁸</span>

רבי יהודה אומר עזים יוצאות צרורות ליבש אבל לא לחלב:

— He too referred to [rings] wholly of metal. He asked him further: I have heard that we distinguish between one needle and another? Perhaps you heard it only in respect to the Sabbath,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For carrying a needle with an eye in it from public or private ground or vice versa one is liable to a sin-offering but not if it has no eye. ');">¹⁹</span> for if in the matter of uncleanness, they are all alike. Now, in the matter of uncleanness, are they all alike? Surely we learnt: If the eyehole or the point of a needle is removed, it is clean! — He referred to a whole [needle]. And are all whole [needles] alike? Surely we learnt: If a needle gathers rust and it hinders the sewing, it is clean; if not, it is unclean. And the School of R. Jannai said: Providing that its mark is perceptible.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., providing it is recognizable as a needle — only then is it unclean. Others: providing that the mark of the rust is perceptible when one sews with it — that is regarded as hindering the sewing and makes it clean. ');">²⁰</span> He referred to a bright [needle]. But are all bright [needles] alike? Surely it was taught; A needle, whether containing an eyehole or not, may be handled on the Sabbath;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Like any other utensil. ');">²¹</span> while a needle with an eyehole was specified only in respect to uncleanness.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This shows that there is a distinction in connection with defilement between needle and needle also. ');">²²</span> Surely Abaye interpreted it according to Raba as referring to unfinished utensils!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., if it is unfinished and a hole is still to be punched therein, it is not liable to defilement. But if it is thus finished off without an eye, e.g., as a kind of bodkin, it is a utensil and liable to uncleanness, no distinction being drawn in connection with defilement between needle and needle. In connection with Sabbath, however, even the former may be handled, for one may decide to use it in its unfinished state, e.g., as a toothpick or for removing splinters from the flesh, and so it ranks as a utensil. ');">²³</span> <b><i>MISHNAH</i></b>. AN ASS MAY GO OUT WITH ITS CUSHION IF IT IS TIED TO IT.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The cushion is to protect it from the cold. ');">²⁴</span> RAMS MAY GO OUT COUPLED [LEBUBIN]. EWES MAY GO OUT [WITH THEIR POSTERIORS] EXPOSED [SHEHUZOTH], TIED [KEBULOTH], AND COVERED [KEBUNOTH]; GOATS MAY GO OUT [WITH THEIR UDDERS] TIED UP. R. JOSE FORBIDS IN ALL THESE CASES, SAVE EWES THAT ARE COVERED. R. JUDAH SAID: GOATS MAY GO OUT [WITH THEIR UDDERS] TIED IN ORDER TO DRY UP,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To cease giving milk. ');">²⁵</span> BUT NOT TO SAVE THEIR MILK.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A pouch is sometimes loosely tied round the udder to prevent the milk from dripping; hence it may fall off and therefore R. Judah forbids it (v. 53a). But in the second case it is tied very tightly. ');">²⁶</span>