Shabbat

are clean!  — Said R. Isaac: It [our Mishnah] refers to such as pass from [being] men's ornaments to [become] animals' ornaments;  while R. Joseph said: [They  become unclean] because a man leads the animal by them. [For] was it not taught: An animal's staff  of metal  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. AND THEY MAY BE IMMERSED IN THEIR PLACE. But there is an intervention?  — Said R. Ammi: It means that he beat them out.  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!  — He holds as R. Judah, who maintained, An act to adapt [an object] is not [considered] an act.  For it was taught: R. Judah said: A change-effecting act was not mentioned  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. A certain disciple from Upper Galilee asked R. Eleazar: I have heard that a distinction is drawn between one ring and another?  Perhaps you heard it only in reference to the Sabbath;  for if in connection with uncleanness, they are all alike.  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.  — He  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,  It Is unclean; if it is of coral while the signet is of metal, it is clean.  — 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,  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.  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;  while a needle with an eyehole was specified only in respect to uncleanness.  Surely Abaye interpreted it according to Raba as referring to unfinished utensils! MISHNAH. AN ASS MAY GO OUT WITH ITS CUSHION IF IT IS TIED TO IT.  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,  BUT NOT TO SAVE THEIR MILK.