Shabbat

his mind may be appeased. Said he: An ass of evil habits, such as this one, may it go forth wearing a halter on the Sabbath? — Thus did your father say in Samuel's name, he answered him, The halachah is as Hananiah. The School of Manasseh taught: If grooves are made between a goat's horns, it may be led out with a bit on the Sabbath.  R. Joseph asked: What if one fastened it through its beard:  since It is painful [to the goat] to tug at it,  it will not come to do so;  or perhaps it may chance to loosen and fall, and he will come to carry it four cubits in the street? The question stands over. We learnt elsewhere: Nor with the strap between its horns.  R. Jeremiah b. Abba said: Rab and Samuel differ therein: One maintains: Whether as an ornament or as a guard, it is forbidden; while the other rules: As an ornament it is forbidden; as a guard it is permitted. R. Joseph observed: It may be proved that it was Samuel who maintained: As an ornament it is forbidden; as a guard it is permitted. For R. Huna b. Hiyya said in Samuel's name: The halachah is as Hananiah.  Said Abaye to him, On the contrary, It may be proved that it was Samuel who maintained: Whether as an ornament or as a guard it is forbidden. For Rab Judah said in Samuel's name: They transposed them [in their questions] before Rabbi: What about one animal going forth with [the accoutrement] of the other? Said R. Ishmael b. R. Jose before him, Thus did my father rule: Four animals may go out with a bit: A horse, mule, camel and ass. What does it exclude?  Surely it excludes a camel [from being led out] with a nose-ring?  Delete the latter on account of the former.  And what [reason] do you see to delete the latter on account of the former? Delete the former on account of the latter! — Because we find that it was Samuel who ruled: As an ornament it is forbidden; as a guard it is permitted. [For it was stated:]  R. Hiyya b. Ashi said in Rab's name: Whether as an ornament or as a guard it is forbidden; while R. Hiyya b. Abin said in Samuel's name: As an ornament it is forbidden; as a guard it is permitted. An objection is raised: If it [the red heifer] was tied up in a loft by a cord,  it is fit.  Now if you say that it is a burden, surely Scripture saith, Upon which never came yoke?  — Abaye answered: This is when it is led from one town to another.  Raba said: The red heifer is different, because its value is high. Rabina said: This refers to an intractable [animal]. A HORSE WITH ITS CHAIN, etc. What is GO OUT and what is LED? — R. Huna said: [It means,] They may either go out [with the chain] wound round them,  or led [by the chain]; while Samuel maintained: [It means,] They may go out led [by the chain], but they may not go out [with the chain] wound round them. In a Baraitha it was taught: They may go out [with the chain] wound round then, [ready] to be led. R. Joseph said: I saw the calves of R. Huna's house go forth with their cords  wound about them, on the Sabbath. When R. Dimi came,  he related in R. Hanina's name: The mules of Rabbi's house went forth with their reins on the Sabbath. The scholars propounded: 'Wound about them', or 'led'? — Come and hear: When R. Samuel b. Judah came, he related in R. Hanina's name: The mules of Rabbi's house went forth on the Sabbath with their reins wound about them. Said the Rabbis before R. Assi, This [dictum] of R. Samuel b. Judah is unnecessary, [because] it may be deduced from R. Dimi's [statement]. For should you think that R. Dimi meant 'led', it would follow from Rab Judah's [statement] in Samuel's name. For Rab Judah said in Samuel's name: They [the scholars] transposed them [in their questions] before Rabbi: What about one animal going forth with [the accoutrement] of the other? Said R. Ishmael son of R. Jose before him, Thus did my father rule: Four animals may go out with a bit: a horse, mule, camel, and ass!  — Said R. Assi to them, This [R. Samuel b. Judah's statement] is necessary. For if it were derived from Rab Judah's [dictum], I could argue: He [R. Ishmael Son of R. Jose] stated it before him, but he did not accept it. Hence R. Dimi's statement informs us [that he did]. And if there were R. Dimi's [alone], I could argue: It means 'led', but not merely 'wound round'; hence R. Samuel b. Judah's [statement] informs us [otherwise]. AND, [WATER OF LUSTRATION] MAY BE SPRINKLED UPON THEM, AND THEY MAY BE IMMERSED IN THEIR PLACE. Are we to say that they can contract uncleanness? But we learnt: A man's ring is unclean,  but the rings of animals and utensils and all other rings