Shabbat 52b — the Talmud in English

Rav Yitzhak Nappa said:

that the Mishna is speaking

of

rings that became impure while they were ornaments for a person, and afterward they reconsidered them, and they were

coming from the ornament of a person

and became

for ornament

of

an animal

while they were still impure. And it is now necessary to immerse them from their original impurity, so that they will not render pure things impure.

And Rav Yosef said:

Even all rings of an animal, they receive impurity,

since a person pulls the animal with them,

they are considered vessels made for human use, which receive the impurity of vessels.

And we prove: Is it not taught:

a stick of an animal

with which one drives the camel and the she-camel—if it is

of metal,

it

receives impurity,

as is the law of simple metal vessels?

But one of wood does not receive impurity, even if it has the status of a vessel, because simple wooden vessels that do not have a receptacle do not receive impurity.

And

what is the reason

that the stick of an animal is considered a vessel for human use?

Since a person drives with them

the animal.

And here too

with the ring, it is human use and it is considered a vessel,

since a person pulls with them

the animal.

We learned in the Mishna:

And he immerses them in their place.

And we object: How can immersion help for the ring when it is tied to the animal?

But there is an interposition

because of the ring that is inserted tightly into the hole in the ring, and the water does not enter the place of connection between the ring and the ring.

Rav Ami said:

that the Mishna is speaking

of rings that were soldered

for rings: he struck them with a hammer until the hole in which the ring was inserted became widened. And from now on the water can enter there.

And we consider it:

Shall we say that Rav Ami,

who established our Mishna as referring to rings that were soldered

holds like Rav Yosef,

who establishes our Mishna as referring to rings that were originally made for an animal?

For if

he holds

like Rav Yitzhak, who said

that our Mishna is speaking

of those coming from the ornament of a person to the ornament of an animal,

and they became impure while they were still an ornament for a person, and afterward he designated them for an animal—then it is impossible to establish it as referring to rings that were soldered.

For

once they were soldered—

he performed an action with them

to change them from an ornament for a person to an ornament for an animal, since through the act of soldering they are no longer beautiful as a person’s ornament.

And

through this

their impurity departed from them,

since through the act of soldering they cease to have the status of an ornament.

But

this

we learned: All vessels

whose work has not yet been completely finished,

“descend”

to qualification for receiving

their impurity through thought

alone. For although they still require improvement, and ordinarily they do not yet have the status of a vessel, if he thought concerning them to leave them as they are, this is the completion of their work, and they receive impurity from now on.

But

they do not

rise

from their impurity

once they have become impure, through thought alone, when he now thinks that he will continue improving their workmanship,

but through a change of action.

For example, if someone thought concerning leather to make it into a mat, it becomes a vessel through thought and receives impurity. From now on, even if he thinks concerning it to make it into straps and sandals—and with regard to this its work is still unfinished—nevertheless the status of a vessel that came upon it through his first thought is not nullified.

And it is not purified unless he begins to perform an action with it to nullify it from his first thought. For example, if he puts a knife into it. At that point the status of a vessel is nullified from it, and its impurity departs.

And if so, we have learned that through an action the status of a vessel is nullified from it. If so, one cannot explain the Mishna according to Rav Yitzhak, that it is speaking when they were soldered. For if so, their impurity departed and they do not require immersion.

And it is proven that he holds like Rav Yosef. For although after the soldering they are not fit as an ornament for a person, nevertheless they have the status of a vessel for human use, since a person pulls the animal with them. Therefore their impurity did not depart through the act of soldering, and they require immersion and sprinkling.

And we reject this: It is possible that Rav Ami holds like Rav Yitzhak.

And the reason that their impurity did not depart through the act of soldering is because

he follows Rabbi Yehuda. For

Rabbi Yehuda said:

an action

that is performed in order

to improve is not an action

that removes

it

from the status of a vessel.

For it was taught: Rabbi Yehuda says: He did not say

[it was not stated] that a

change of action

nullifies the status of a vessel if it was performed in order

to improve.

Rather,

only a change of action performed in order

to damage

the vessel nullifies the status of a vessel from it.

And here, the act of soldering was performed in order to improve the ring for the needs of the animal. And for this reason it does not thereby leave the status of a human vessel that it previously had.

And the Gemara returns to the objection above: how does immersion help when the ring is attached to the animal, for this is an interposition?

And we answer:

In a baraita it was taught:

that it is speaking here

of

rings

that are hollow,

which were made from the outset with broad cavities, and one ring is placed inside another ring with space. Therefore there is no interposition at the place of connection between the ring and the ring.

One student from Upper Galilee asked Rabbi Elazar: I heard that they distinguish

a halakhic distinction between

one ring and another ring,

but I do not know what this distinction is.

He said to him,

Rabbi Elazar:

Perhaps you did not hear

a distinction in this,

except concerning

the carrying of

Shabbat

alone, and not concerning impurity.

For we find a distinction between rings with regard to the liability for carrying on Shabbat: for carrying a ring on which there is a signet, there is liability for a sin-offering, since it is not an ornament but a burden. But for carrying a ring on which there is no signet, one is exempt by Torah law [below, 59b], and its prohibition is only rabbinic, for they decreed this because he is liable to remove it and show it. [At that point it would not be a manner of wearing but a manner of carrying, and he would be liable by Torah law].

For if it is concerning impurity, this one and that one are the same.

Whether it is a ring on which there is a signet or whether it is a ring on which there is no signet, it is a vessel and it receives impurity.

And we object:

And

if

concerning impurity this one and that one are the same,

and all the rings have one law, yet we find a distinction between them.

For

we learned: A person’s ring—

impure. But an animal’s ring, and vessels, and all the other rings—

pure,

because an animal and vessels do not have an ornament.

And we answer:

When he said this to him,

Rabbi Elazar said to the student that there is no distinction between rings with regard to impurity,

he too

was speaking of a ring

of a person.

For with regard to it we do not find a distinction concerning impurity.

And we object again:

And

if concerning rings

of a person, this one and that one are the same?

But even concerning it we find a distinction.

And it was taught: A ring that he prepared

in order

to gird with it

his

loins

[serving as a buckle for his belt],

and to tie with it between his shoulders

his sleeves,

is pure.

For it is like a ring of vessels, and it is not subject to receiving impurity.

And they said

that a ring

is impure only

in a

finger ring

alone. Since it is an ornament, and only it has the status of a utensil.

And it is proven that there is also a distinction regarding a person’s rings.

And we answer:

When he said to him

—Rabbi Elazar to the student—that there is no distinction between rings with regard to impurity,

he too

in a ring

of the finger was speaking to him

thus. But with regard to Shabbat there is a distinction: if it has a signet, it is a burden, and if it does not have a signet, it is an ornament.

And again we challenge:

And

when it is a ring

of the finger, this one and that one are one and the same

—that all of them are equal with regard to impurity?

But we learned: A ring of metal, and its signet

the signet of that ring, which is found at the head of the ring, is

of

wood or

coral

—if the ring touched impurity, it is

impure.

Since the ring is the principal part. And since it is made of metal, its law is like that of plain metal utensils, which receive impurity.

But if

it is of coral and its signet

is of

metal—

it is

pure.

Since its principal part is made of coral wood, its law is like that of plain wooden utensils, which do not receive impurity.

It follows that even with a finger ring we find a distinction with regard to impurity; why, then, did Rabbi Elazar say, “This one and that one are one and the same”?

And we answer:

When he said to him

Rabbi Elazar,

he too

was speaking about a ring

entirely

of

metal

to that student, that there is no distinction in it with regard to impurity.

And he further asked

that student Rabbi Elazar:

I heard that they distinguish

a halakhic distinction

between one needle and another

but I do not know what that distinction is.

Rabbi Elazar said to him:

Rabbi Elazar:

Perhaps you did not hear

a distinction in this matter

except with regard to Shabbat

alone. For there is a distinction between a perforated needle and one that is not perforated. For carrying out a perforated needle one is liable to a sin-offering [62a]. But for a needle that is not perforated, which is only for an ornament, one is not liable for carrying it out [57a].

For if it is with regard to impurity—

this one and that one are one and the same,

for all needles are equal and receive impurity.

And we challenge:

And

when

with regard to impurity this one and that one are one and the same?—

Yet even with regard to impurity we find a distinction among needles, for there are needles that do not become impure.

But we learned: A needle that

became impure, and afterward

its eye or its point was removed

[its sharp point], it is

pure.

For since the status of a utensil was nullified from it, its impurity departed.

And we answer:

When he said to him

that there is no distinction among needles,

in

a

whole

needle he was speaking.

And again we challenge:

And

when

in

a needle

that is whole, are this one and that one one and the same?

And

yet even in it we find a distinction.

But we learned: A needle that has become rusty—

if

this matter

interferes with sewing,

it is

pure. But if not, it is impure.

And the school of Rabbi Yannai said: And

the measure of rust that interferes with sewing

is when its mark

of the rust

is discernible

on the garment that is sewn with this needle.

It follows that even in a whole needle we find a distinction with regard to impurity: between rust that interferes with sewing and rust that does not interfere.

And we answer:

When he said to him

that there is no distinction among needles,

in a sharpened one

[a smoothed needle that has no rust]

he was speaking to him

thus.

And again we challenge:

And with a sharpened one, are this one and that one one and the same?

But it was taught: A needle—

whether perforated or not perforated, it is permitted to move it on Shabbat

in a courtyard, and it is not subject to muktzeh, because it has the status of a utensil, and it also has a permitted use, for it is fit to remove a thorn with it .

And they said

that the distinction

between a perforated

and a non-perforated needle is

only with regard to impurity.

And it is explained that specifically a perforated needle receives impurity. But a needle that is not perforated does not become impure, because it is not considered an important utensil. If so, are all needles not equal with regard to the laws of impurity?

And we answer:

Abaye interpreted this in accordance with Rava

with regard to this beraita,

in an unfinished one.

That is, a needle at the beginning of its manufacture, which is destined to be perforated. And as long as it has not been perforated, its manufacture is not yet complete, and therefore it does not receive impurity. For with regard to impurity, the verse concerning purification from the impurity of a utensil of Midian states “a utensil of workmanship,” that is, a utensil whose entire workmanship has been completed.

But a needle whose manufacture was completed with the intention that it not be perforated does receive impurity. And concerning it Rabbi Eliezer said, “This one and that one are one and the same.”

Mishna:

A donkey goes out

into the public domain

with a saddlecloth,

because one always places it upon it in order to warm it. And as is known, “A donkey—even during the season of Tammuz, it is cool for it.” Therefore, the saddlecloth is not a burden for it, but clothing.

When does it go out with it?—

When it is tied to it.

And the Gemara will explain this.

Rams—

males go out with their tails bound

[attached to one another by a knot]. And it is not a burden, because this is their practice. And other interpretations of this were stated in the Gemara.

The ewes, the

females, go out with their tails raised

[that their tails are tied upward],

and bound

[that their tails are tied downward],

and wrapped

[wrapped around them in a garment], for their practice is to do all these things, and it is not considered a burden. And the Gemara explains for what purpose this is done to them.

The goats go out with their udders bound

with a covering [that is tied over them]. Sometimes this is done in order to tighten their udders so that they dry up and no longer give milk, so that they will become pregnant again, or so that they will be fat for food. And sometimes this is done in order to preserve the milk, so that it will not drip onto the ground.

Rabbi Yosei prohibits them all

[all those which the first tanna permitted] from going out into the public domain, because it is a burden.

Except for the wrapped ewes,

since the covering is for the purpose of preserving their wool, it is like an ornament.

Rabbi Yehuda says:

They go out with all those mentioned above, like the first tanna. However, the

“goats go out with their udders bound”

means specifically when they were bound in order

to dry them.

Since then the covering is tightened well, and they did not fear lest it fall.

But they do not

go out when they are bound

for

the purpose of preserving the

milk.

Since the covering is not tightened well, we are concerned lest it fall, and the owner may carry it in the public domain.