## Shabbat Daf 52b

###### Shabbat 52b:1
[Shabbat 52b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shabbat/r/52b:1)

טְהוֹרוֹת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
are **ritually pure.**


###### Shabbat 52b:2
[Shabbat 52b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shabbat/r/52b:2)

אָמַר רַבִּי יִצְחָק נַפָּחָא: בְּבָאִין מִנּוֹי אָדָם לְנוֹי בְּהֵמָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Yitzḥak Nappaḥa said:** Our mishna is referring to ornaments that were **transformed from** their original designation for **a person’s adornment to** an ornament designated for **an animal’s adornment.** They had once belonged to a person who later affixed them in order to attach a strap to an animal. Their original ritual impurity does not cease when they are attached to the animal.


###### Shabbat 52b:3
[Shabbat 52b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shabbat/r/52b:3)

וְרַב יוֹסֵף אָמַר: הוֹאִיל וְאָדָם מוֹשֵׁךְ בָּהֶם אֶת הַבְּהֵמָה. מִי לָא תַּנְיָא: מַקֵּל שֶׁל בְּהֵמָה, שֶׁל מַתֶּכֶת מְקַבֵּל טוּמְאָה. מַה טַּעַם? — הוֹאִיל וְאָדָם רוֹדָהּ בָּהֶן. הָכָא נָמֵי, הוֹאִיל וְאָדָם מוֹשֵׁךְ בָּהֶן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And Rav Yosef said:** Animals’ rings can become ritually impure **since a person pulls his animal with them.** Consequently, they are considered utensils used by people. **Wasn’t it taught** in a *baraita*: **The metal animal prod becomes ritually impure? What is the reason** that it becomes ritually impure even though it is an animal’s utensil? **Since a person subjugates** his animal **with it,** it is regarded as a utensil for use by a person; therefore, it can become ritually impure. **Here too**, with regard to chains, **since a person pulls** his animal **with them,** they are regarded as utensils for use by a person.


###### Shabbat 52b:4
[Shabbat 52b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shabbat/r/52b:4)

וְטוֹבְלָן בִּמְקוֹמָן: וְהָאִיכָּא חֲצִיצָה!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
And we learned in our mishna: If the animals’ chains became ritually impure, **one may immerse them while they are in their place** on the animal, and they need not first be removed. The Gemara raises a question: **Isn’t this an obstruction** that renders the immersion invalid? The rings of the chain are firmly attached to the chain, and there is no room for the water of the ritual bath to completely surround the chain.


###### Shabbat 52b:5
[Shabbat 52b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shabbat/r/52b:5)

אָמַר רַבִּי אַמֵּי: בְּשֶׁרִיתְּכָן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Ami said:** The mishna is referring to a case where **he struck** the rings of the chain with a hammer, widening them and thereby creating sufficient space to allow the water to surround the chain on all sides.


###### Shabbat 52b:6
[Shabbat 52b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shabbat/r/52b:6)

לֵימָא רַבִּי אַמֵּי כְּרַב יוֹסֵף סְבִירָא לֵיהּ, דְּאִי כְּרַבִּי יִצְחָק נַפָּחָא, דְּאָמַר: בְּבָאִין מִנּוֹי אָדָם לְנוֹי בְּהֵמָה — כֵּיוָן דְּרִיתְּכָן, עֲבַד בְּהוּ מַעֲשֶׂה וּפְרַחָה לַהּ טוּמְאָה מִינַּיְיהוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **Let us say** that **Rabbi Ami holds in accordance with** the opinion of **Rav Yosef. As, if** he held **in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Yitzḥak Nappaḥa,** who **said** that our mishna is referring to ornaments that were **transformed from** their original designation for **a person’s adornment** to an ornament designated for **an animal’s adornment,** and therefore they can be ritually impure with impurity contracted while it was still a person’s ornament, it is difficult. **Since he struck** the chain, **he performed an action** which altered **its** identity, **and the impurity would have ceased** even without immersion.


###### Shabbat 52b:7
[Shabbat 52b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shabbat/r/52b:7)

דִּתְנַן: כׇּל הַכֵּלִים יוֹרְדִין לִידֵי טוּמְאָתָן בְּמַחְשָׁבָה, וְאֵין עוֹלִין מִטּוּמְאָתָן אֶלָּא בְּשִׁינּוּי מַעֲשֶׂה!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**As we learned** in a mishna: **All vessels descend into their** state of **ritual impurity by means of thought.** Even though an unfinished vessel cannot become ritually impure, if the craftsman decided not to complete it, it immediately assumes the legal status of a completed vessel and can become ritually impure. **However, they only ascend from their** state of **ritual impurity by means of a change** resulting from an **action.** A ritually impure vessel, once it undergoes physical change, is no longer ritually impure. Hammering the rings is an action that effects physical change. Therefore, the chain should be ritually pure without immersion.


###### Shabbat 52b:8
[Shabbat 52b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shabbat/r/52b:8)

סָבַר לַהּ כְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה דְּאָמַר מַעֲשֶׂה לְתַקֵּן לָאו מַעֲשֶׂה הוּא. דְּתַנְיָא, רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: לֹא אָמְרוּ שִׁינּוּי מַעֲשֶׂה לְתַקֵּן אֶלָּא לְקַלְקֵל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara rejects this argument: Actually, Rabbi Ami could interpret the mishna just as Rabbi Yitzḥak Nappaḥa did, as he **holds in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Yehuda,** who **said** that **an action** performed **to enhance** a utensil **is not an action** capable of ridding that utensil of its ritual impurity, **as it was taught** in a *baraita*: **Rabbi Yehuda said:** He **did not say** that **an action that effects a** physical **change** purifies a utensil of its ritual impurity with regard to an action performed **to enhance** a utensil; **rather,** he made his statement with regard to an action performed **to ruin** the utensil.


###### Shabbat 52b:9
[Shabbat 52b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shabbat/r/52b:9)

בְּמַתְנִיתָא תָּנֵי בִּמְחוּלָּלִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**It was taught in a *baraita*:** The mishna is referring to a case where the rings attached to the chain are well **spaced** so that the water completely surrounds the rings of the chain with no obstruction.


###### Shabbat 52b:10
[Shabbat 52b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shabbat/r/52b:10)

שָׁאַל תַּלְמִיד אֶחָד מִגָּלִיל הָעֶלְיוֹן אֶת רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר: שָׁמַעְתִּי שֶׁחוֹלְקִין בֵּין טַבַּעַת לְטַבַּעַת. אָמַר לוֹ: שֶׁמָּא לֹא שָׁמַעְתָּ אֶלָּא לְעִנְיַן שַׁבָּת. דְּאִי לְעִנְיַן טוּמְאָה, דָּא וְדָא חֲדָא הִיא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
It was taught in the *Tosefta*: **A certain disciple from the Upper Galilee asked Rabbi Eliezer: I heard that one distinguishes between** one type of **ring and** another type of **ring.** However, I do not know with regard to what *halakha* this distinction is made. Rabbi Eliezer **said to him: Perhaps you only heard** that distinction with regard **to the matter of Shabbat;** a ring for adornment may be moved on Shabbat and other rings may not. **As,** with regard **to the matter of ritual impurity, this** ring **and that** ring **are one** and the same, and there is no distinction between them.


###### Shabbat 52b:11
[Shabbat 52b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shabbat/r/52b:11)

וּלְעִנְיַן טוּמְאָה דָּא וְדָא אַחַת הִיא? וְהָתְנַן: טַבַּעַת אָדָם טְמֵאָה, וְטַבַּעַת בְּהֵמָה וְכֵלִים וּשְׁאָר כׇּל הַטַּבָּעוֹת טְהוֹרוֹת! כִּי קָאָמַר לֵיהּ אִיהוּ, נָמֵי דְּאָדָם קָאָמַר לֵיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara raises an objection: **And** with regard **to the matter of ritual impurity, are this and that one** and the same? **Didn’t we learn** in a mishna: **A ring** worn by **a person is ritually impure; however, the ring of an animal, and** that of **utensils, and all other rings** not worn by people **are ritually pure?** Apparently, a distinction is made between different types of rings with regard to the *halakhot* of ritual impurity as well. The Gemara answers: **When** Rabbi Eliezer **was saying** that statement **to** the disciple, **he too was saying to him** that with regard to ritual impurity there is no distinction between different types **of** rings worn by **a person.**


###### Shabbat 52b:12
[Shabbat 52b:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shabbat/r/52b:12)

וּדְאָדָם, דָּא וְדָא אַחַת הִיא? וְהָתַנְיָא: טַבַּעַת שֶׁהִתְקִינָה לַחְגּוֹר בָּהּ מׇתְנָיו וּלְקַשֵּׁר בָּהּ בֵּין כְּתֵפָיו — טְהוֹרָה, וְלֹא אָמְרוּ טְמֵאָה אֶלָּא שֶׁל אֶצְבַּע בִּלְבַד! כִּי קָאָמַר לֵיהּ אִיהוּ, נָמֵי דְּאֶצְבַּע קָאָמַר לֵיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara raises another objection: **And** with regard **to** rings worn by **a person**, **are this and that one** and the same? **Wasn’t it taught** in a *baraita*: **A ring that one fashioned** into a buckle at the end of a belt **to wear it around his waist, or** into a clasp **to tie** garments **between his shoulders, is ritually pure?** The Sages **only said** that a ring is **ritually impure** with regard to a ring **worn on a** person’s **finger.** Apparently, there is in fact a distinction between different rings worn by a person. The Gemara answers: **When** Rabbi Eliezer **was saying** that statement **to** the disciple, **he too was saying to him** that there is no distinction between different types of rings worn on a person’s **finger.**


###### Shabbat 52b:13
[Shabbat 52b:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shabbat/r/52b:13)

וּדְאֶצְבַּע דָּא וְדָא אַחַת הִיא? וְהָתְנַן: טַבַּעַת שֶׁל מַתֶּכֶת וְחוֹתָמָהּ שֶׁל אַלְמוֹג — טְמֵאָה. הִיא שֶׁל אַלְמוֹג וְחוֹתָמָהּ שֶׁל מַתֶּכֶת — טְהוֹרָה! כִּי קָאָמַר לֵיהּ אִיהוּ, נָמֵי כּוּלָּהּ שֶׁל מַתֶּכֶת קָאָמַר לֵיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara raises yet another objection: **And** with regard **to** rings worn on a person’s **finger, are this and that one** and the same? **Didn’t we learn** in a mishna: **A ring** made **of metal and its seal** is made **of coral, is ritually impure?** The primary component of the ring, metal, is the determining factor, and a metal utensil can become ritually impure. However, a ring that is made **of coral and its seal is** made **of metal is ritually pure.** Apparently, there is a distinction between different types of finger rings with regard to ritual impurity. The Gemara answers: **When** Rabbi Eliezer **was saying** that statement **to** the disciple, **he too was saying to him** that there is no distinction between different types of rings **that** are made **entirely of metal.**


###### Shabbat 52b:14
[Shabbat 52b:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shabbat/r/52b:14)

וְעוֹד שָׁאַל: שָׁמַעְתִּי שֶׁחוֹלְקִין בֵּין מַחַט לְמַחַט. אָמַר לוֹ: שֶׁמָּא לֹא שָׁמְעַתְּ אֶלָּא לְעִנְיַן שַׁבָּת, דְּאִי לְעִנְיַן טוּמְאָה דָּא וְדָא אַחַת הִיא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And furthermore,** that same disciple **asked: I heard that one distinguishes between** one type of **needle and** another type of **needle.** Still, I do not know with regard to what *halakha* this distinction is made. Rabbi Eliezer **said to him: Perhaps you only heard** that distinction **with regard to Shabbat.** With regard to the prohibition of carrying from a private to a public domain, or vice versa, there is a distinction between a needle with an eye, for which one is liable to bring a sin-offering, and one without an eye, for which one is not. **As, if** you were to suggest that the distinction is **with regard to ritual impurity, this,** a needle with an eye, **and that,** a needle without an eye, **are one** and the same, and there is no distinction between them.


###### Shabbat 52b:15
[Shabbat 52b:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shabbat/r/52b:15)

וּלְעִנְיַן טוּמְאָה דָּא וְדָא אַחַת הִיא? וְהָתְנַן: מַחַט שֶׁנִּיטַּל חוֹרָהּ אוֹ עוּקְצָהּ — טְהוֹרָה! כִּי קָאָמַר לֵיהּ בִּשְׁלֵימָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara raises an objection: **And** with regard **to the matter of ritual impurity, are this and that one** and the same? Are all needles alike? **Didn’t we learn** in a mishna: **A needle whose eye or whose point was removed is ritually pure,** as it is no longer fit for use? Apparently, there is a distinction between an intact needle and a broken one with regard to the *halakhot* of ritual impurity. The Gemara answers: **When** Rabbi Eliezer **was saying** that statement **to** the disciple, he was referring **to a whole** needle. Indeed, there is no distinction between different types of whole needles with regard to the *halakhot* of ritual impurity.


###### Shabbat 52b:16
[Shabbat 52b:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shabbat/r/52b:16)

וּבִשְׁלֵימָה דָּא וְדָא אַחַת הִיא? וְהָתְנַן: מַחַט שֶׁהֶעֶלְתָה חֲלוּדָה, אִם מְעַכֵּב אֶת הַתְּפִירָה — טְהוֹרָה, וְאִם לָאו — טְמֵאָה. וְאָמְרִי דְּבֵי רַבִּי יַנַּאי: וְהוּא שֶׁרִישּׁוּמָהּ נִיכָּר! כִּי קָאָמַר לֵיהּ, בְּשִׁיפָא קָאָמַר לֵיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara raises another objection: **And with regard to whole** needles, **are this and that one** and the same? Is there no distinction between them? **Didn’t we learn** in a mishna: With regard to **a needle that became rusty**; **if** the rust **inhibits the sewing,** the needle **is ritually pure; and if** it does **not** inhibit the sewing, **it is ritually impure. And the** Sages **of the school of Rabbi Yannai said: And that is** the *halakha* that the needle cannot become ritually impure not only when it is impossible to push the needle through the fabric, but even **when** the **mark** of rusty needle is **conspicuous** in the stitching. Apparently, there is a distinction between different types of whole needles. The Gemara answers: **When** Rabbi Eliezer **was saying** that statement **to** the disciple, **he was saying to him** that there is no distinction between different types **of** needles that were **smoothed** and filed. He was not referring to rusty needles.


###### Shabbat 52b:17
[Shabbat 52b:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shabbat/r/52b:17)

וּבְשִׁיפָא דָּא וְדָא אַחַת הִיא? וְהָתַנְיָא: מַחַט בֵּין נְקוּבָה בֵּין אֵינָהּ נְקוּבָה מוּתָּר לְטַלְטְלָהּ בְּשַׁבָּת, וְלָא אָמְרִינַן נְקוּבָה אֶלָּא לְעִנְיַן טוּמְאָה בִּלְבַד!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara raises yet another objection: **And with regard to smoothed** needles, **are this and that one** and the same? **Wasn’t it taught in** a *baraita*: **A needle, whether it has an eye** and **whether it does not have an eye, may be moved on Shabbat? And we only said** that a needle **with an eye** is different **with regard to** the *halakhot* of **ritual impurity.** Apparently, there is a distinction between different types of smoothed needles with regard to the *halakhot* of ritual impurity.


###### Shabbat 52b:18
[Shabbat 52b:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shabbat/r/52b:18)

הָא תַּרְגְּמַהּ אַבָּיֵי אַלִּיבָּא דְּרָבָא — בְּגֻלְמֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **Didn’t Abaye** already **interpret** that *baraita* **in accordance with** the opinion of **Rava** as referring **to unfinished** needles? If a needle is unfinished, and it has not been perforated to create an eye, it cannot become ritually impure because it is not yet a utensil. However, if the needle is finished, whether it has an eye and is used for sewing, or it does not have an eye and is used as a pin, it is regarded as a utensil and therefore can become ritually impure.


###### Shabbat 52b:19
[Shabbat 52b:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shabbat/r/52b:19)

**מַתְנִי׳** חֲמוֹר יוֹצֵא בַּמַּרְדַּעַת בִּזְמַן שֶׁהִיא קְשׁוּרָה בּוֹ. זְכָרִים יוֹצְאִין לְבוּבִין. רְחֵלוֹת יוֹצְאוֹת שְׁחוּזוֹת, כְּבוּלוֹת וּכְבוּנוֹת. הָעִזִּים יוֹצְאוֹת צְרוּרוֹת. רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹסֵר בְּכוּלָּן, חוּץ מִן הָרְחֵלִין הַכְּבוּנוֹת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** **A donkey may go out** on Shabbat **with a saddlecloth** that protects it from the cold **when it is tied to** the animal, and there is no room for concern lest it fall. **Rams may go out *levuvin*. Ewes may go out *sheḥuzot, kevulot,* and *kevunot***. All of these terms are discussed and explained in the Gemara. **She-goats may go out** with their udders **bound. Rabbi Yosei prohibits** the animals from going out **with all** of **these** items, as he considers them burdens, **except for the ewes that are *kevunot*.**


###### Shabbat 52b:20
[Shabbat 52b:20](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shabbat/r/52b:20)

רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: עִזִּים יוֹצְאוֹת צְרוּרוֹת לְיַבֵּשׁ, אֲבָל לֹא לֵחָלֵב.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Yehuda says: Goats may go out** on Shabbat with their udders **bound to dry** their milk supply and discontinue their lactation, in order to facilitate conception. In that case, they are tied with a tight, permanent knot, and there is no concern lest it fall in the public domain. **However,** they may **not** go out with their udders bound **to** conserve their **milk,** as in that case they are bound loosely.