1)

(a)A goat is not included in the list of animals allowed to go out with reins - because, due to its slender neck, in addition to the fact that it will move its neck quite violently (in an effort to escape from the noose), it is likely to escape, leaving the rope in the owner's hand, and us with the concern that the owner may carry it home.

(b)One is however, permitted to allow the goat to go out with the reins, if it is tied to a niche in its horn, thus ensuring that it cannot slip out.

(c)The Gemara asks whether, if the rope is tied to its beard, one may allow the goat to go into the street - since, on the one hand, it is less likely to struggle to free itself, on account of the pain; though on the other, the rope can slip more easily from the beard.

2)

(a)One's cow - is not permitted to go out wearing a colored ornamental strap.

(b)Rav and Shmuel dispute whether the cow is permitted to go out if the colored strap is intended to guard it (i.e. for the owner to hold it when they walk together in the street). The reason that Rav forbids it is - because a cow does not require guarding, and Rav forbids an animal to go out with something to guard it, when it is unnecessary

(c)The inference that a camel should not be allowed to go out with a metal ring in its nose - contradicts Shmuel's statement that the Halachah is like Chananya, who permits excessive guarding.

(d)We reject the first statement in favor of the second one - due to a third statement, where Shmuel specifically permits a cow with a colored strap to go out on Shabbos, when it is for guarding purposes.

3)

(a)The Beraisa, concerning Parah Adumah, writes 'Kashrah Ba'alah be'Moseirah, Kesheirah'. Now, considering that a Parah Adumah that has carried a burden, becomes Pasul, how could the Beraisa then declare such a Parah Adumah valid, if excessive guarding was considered a burden?

(b)We refute this proof in three different ways: 1. The Beraisa is speaking about a Parah Adumah that he is leading from one town to another (in which case, it requires more careful guarding than usual, because of its tendency to go to the side of the inter-city path to graze); 2. because by virtue of its high price, the Parah Adumah requires more guarding than ordinary cows - 3. the Beraisa is dealing specifically with a cow that has rebelled, which needs special guarding.

4)

(a)'ve'Chol Ba'alei ha'Shir, Yotz'in be'Shir, ve'Nimshachin be'Shir' either means that animals that tend to wear a ring (with a rope attached) may go out either with the rope wound around its neck (as an ornament, since it is normal for the animal to do this) or when it is being drawn by the rope - or it can mean that those animals may only go out when they are being drawn by the rope, but not when it is wound around their necks.

(b)The Tana of the Beraisa learns a third way 'Yotz'in Keruchin Limashech' - which means that, (like the first explanation) he permits them to go out with the rope wound around their necks, but provided that the rope is loose, so that, should the need arise, the owner will be able to grab hold of it to prevent the animal from running away.

5)

(a)Rav Dimi's testimony that Rebbi's mules used to go out with their reins - turns out to be a support for Rav Huna (against Shmuel), who maintains that one may even allow one's animals to go out with the reins wound around their necks, because that is, in fact, what Rebbi allowed his mules to do.

(b)Rav Shmuel bar Yehudah, quoting Rebbi Chanina, also quoted Rebbi like Rav Dimi, but he adds that the reins were wrapped around the mules necks. In light of Rebbi Yishmael b'Rebbi Yossi, who told Shmuel that his father used to permit a mule to go out with reins, Rav Shmuel bar Yehudah's statement appears to be redundant - because that is what Rav Dimi appears to be coming to teach us (since if it was to teach us only that a mule may go out with reins, we know that already from what Rebbi Yishmael b'Rebbi Yossi told Shmuel).

(c)In fact, we would not have known that mules are permitted to go out with reins, from Rebbi Yishmael b'Rebbi Yossi's testimony alone - because who says that Shmuel accepted his testimony? Consequently, Rav Dimi might be coming to corroborate Rebbi Yishmael's testimony, and we would need Rav Shmuel bar Yehudah to teach us that Rebbi even permitted it when the reins were wound around their necks.

6)

(a)Our Mishnah speaks about Toveling and sprinkling the ring, to which one would attach the rope to hold the animal. But we have learnt in a Mishnah in Keilim, that rings which serve animals or vessels are not subject to Tum'ah, in which case, the rings around the necks of the animals should not require Tevilah and Haza'ah.

(b)This does not mean that the rings are Tahor even whilst they are attached to the vessel - since we have learnt elsewhere that handles of vessels are Tamei together with the parent vessel; since, as long as the handle is attached to a vessel, it is considered part of the vessel. We are speaking however, when the rings themselves became Tamei.

(c)Rav Yitzchak establishes the Mishnah by vessels which were being used by human beings at the time that they became Tamei, and which were adapted for animal use only later. Rav Yosef explains that, although rings that serve vessels remain Tahor, that does not apply here, because it is the owner who uses the ring to pull the animal, rendering it a ring which serves a human being, which is subject to Tum'ah. He proves this from a Beraisa, which declares Tamei the metal stick of an animal, whose function is to serve the animal, yet it is subject to Tum'ah, because it is the owner who uses it to strike the animal.

7)

(a)We ask how it is possible to Tovel the ring that fits into the animal's neck-ring, since it is usually fitted tightly and therefore constitutes a Chatzitzah. Rav Ami establishes our Mishnah 'be'she'Rischan' - meaning that the ring was beaten to widen the size of the hole, in which case, it fits loosely onto the neck-ring, and is no longer a Chatzitzah.

(b)We initially think that Rav Ami must hold like Rav Yosef in the previous question - because, according to Rav Yitzchak there, no Tashmish Beheimah is subject to Tum'ah (even if it is the owner who uses it). In that case, when the owner performed the act of beating the ring, rendering it unfit for Tashmish Adam in the process, why should the ring remain Tamei (since we have learnt that an act that one performs to change a K'li, removes the Din of K'li from the object, which, consequently, is no longer subject to Tum'ah)? According to Rav Yosef, however, who holds that, even if the main function is to serve an animal, it is subject to Tum'ah because a person pulls it, this will not be a Kashya, since that usage remains functional.

(c)Rav Ami can well hold like Rav Yitzchak, we conclude - because when the Mishnah in Keilim rules that an act removes from the object the Din of a K'li, that is only if the act performed was one of destruction. Here, the owner beat the ring, not in order to destroy it, but to rectify it. Therefore, it retains its original title of Tashmish Adam (despite the fact that, in the process, he has rendered the ring untit for Tashmish Adam).

(d)A vessel becomes Tamei through Machshavah alone; a piece of leather, for example, which stands to be fashioned (and is therefore not subject to Tum'ah, since it is not a finished object), becomes subject to Tum'ah the moment the owner decides to retain it as it is - e.g. as a mat. It will not however, lose its Din Tum'ah, by a second decision to fashion the leather into another object. For that, it will require an act - i.e. as soon as he begins to shape the K'li that he intends to make.

8)

(a)The Beraisa dispenses with the Gemara's Kashya in 6a, by establishing the Mishnah by 'Mechulalim' - wide rings, where there is a slight space between the ring and the neck-ring, so that the Kashya disappears.

(b)A ring worn on the finger is Tahor - when it is made of corral-wood - even if the signet part of the ring is made of metal, because it does not have a section to hold liquid, and flat wooden vessels are not subject to Tum'ah.

(c)When Rebbi Elazar said 'Da ve'Da Achas Hi', he was referring to metal (finger) rings - all of which are Tamei.

(d)As far as Shabbos is concerned, there is a difference between a signet-ring and a plain one. This difference will be clarified in the following Perek.

9)

(a)A needle whose hole or point have been removed, is Tahor; even a complete needle is Tahor, if it becomes rusty and interferes with the sewing (should it leave a rusty mark on the cloth); and even if it has been planed down, it is still Tahor if it has no hole. Abaye, quoting Rava, explained that when Rebbi Elazar said with regard to needles 'Da ve'Da Achas Hi' - he was referring to completed needles; irrespective of whether they were holed or not (i.e. they were meant to be used as pins), they are subject to Tum'ah.

(b)A needle that is meant to have a hole however - but that has not been completed, remains Tahor, because it is an incomplete vessel.

(c)That is the Din regarding Tum'ah, because the Torah writes in Matos "K'li Ma'aseh" (and as long as a vessel is not complete, it does not fall under this category. As far as Shabbos is concerned however - even an incomplete vessel (such as a needle without a hole), is not Muktzah, because sometimes the owner decides to leave it as it is, to use to extract splinters (and is therefore considered a vessel).

10)

(a)A donkey may go out with a saddle-cloth - only if it has been tied.

(b)The Tana Kama permits goats whose teats have been tied, to go out on Shabbos. Rebbi Yossi forbids this, as well as all the other cases in our Mishnah. Rebbi Yehudah permits a donkey to go out with its teats tied - provided they have been tied to dry up the milk (because then he will tie them well, and they will not fall off); but not if they were tied to prevent the milk from dripping out and going to waste (because then, one does not tie them so well, in which case, they are likely to fall off, and one may come to carry them - See Rashi, Amud 2, DH 'Lechalev').

(c)They would tie the teats to dry up the milk - either so that the goat should become pregnant, or to improve the meat-quality of its breasts.

(d)Rebbi Yossi considers all the cases in the Mishnah to be carrying, and are therefore Asur min ha'Torah (except for 'Kevunos', which is the only case which is truly for the sake of the beauty of the sheep['s wool]) -whereas the Tana Kama does not consider them to be carrying. (Rebbi Yehudah holds in principle, like the Tana Kama, only he decrees in a case when the bag is not tied on properly.