Question: It is not moved empty and full!

Suggestion: It is possible to fold it (so it is considered something moved empty and full).

Rejection: If it is not made for this, this has no effect [on the law], like it says below (66a) about an amputee's false foot. Even if it has a receptacle to hold the end of his leg, if it is not made to hold, it is Tahor!

Answer: Also these are initially made for all their needs.

Question #1: Above (27a), we learn that something that comes from goats receives Tum'as Sheratzim from "Oh Beged", and Kilkeli and Chevek (a harness strap or band) are from [hair of] goats. Here, we learn from "Oh Sak"!

Question #2: There, we include Notzah (hair) of goats for three by three [Tefachim], and the Shi'ur for Sak is four [by four Tefachim]!

Answer (Ri): There are two kinds of Notzah of goats. There we discuss fine [Notzah], which is used for important garments. Therefore, it is included for three by three Tefachim, like other garments;

Here we discuss thick Notzah, from which they make a harness strap, band, ropes, strings and Sak.

Question (R. Eliezer of Mitz): Since Sheretz and Mes are equated to semen, why do we need the Gezeirah Shavah "Beged v'Or"?

Whatever applies to Mes, applies to semen, and whatever applies to semen, applies to Sheretz, and vice-versa!

This is because something learned from a Hekesh can teach [to elsewhere] through a Hekesh, except for Kodshim! (Tosfos ha'Rosh - the Hekesh teaches only that what is called a garment for this, is called a garment for this, but we do not learn to be Metamei a harness strap or band from the Hekesh, rather, from the Gezeirah Shavah.)

Question: Even (Bi'ah with) Yefas To'ar (a beautiful woman that one sees in war and desires her) was permitted to them! (All the more so thoughts are permitted!)

Answer: In any case, Isur can apply, like we say (Kidushin 22a) "you desire her", and not her colleague (one may take only one Yefas To'ar. Therefore, thoughts about another woman are forbidden.)

Explanation #1 (Rashi): [She puts it] in that place [where menstrual blood leaves] to absorb the blood, lest her clothes get dirty.

Objection: If so, this is to save from filth, and it is a load, like it said above (11b) that anything to save from filth is not Chashiv, and it is a load! (Malei ha'Ro'im - Tosfos means that the Havah Amina was that saving from filth is not Chashiv (significant), but we concluded that it is, and it is a load. Perhaps Tosfos means that it is not considered wearing, so it is a load, or the word "Lo" should be deleted (PF).)

Explanation #2: It is lest it fall on her skin and dry on it, and pain her.

Explanation #1 (Rav Pores): This is a decree due to grinding spices, since it is for Refu'ah.

Rebuttal: If so, if it fell, why can't she return it? It says in Eruvin (102b) that one may return a bandage in the Mikdash, but not outside the Mikdash;

You are forced to say that they forbade returning a bandage only lest one smear, and here smearing does not apply. Smearing applies only to something moist, like a bandage, but not to peppers or a salt crystal!

Explanation #2: She may not put l'Chatchilah [on Shabbos] because it looks like she schemes in order to take it out.

Consequence: According to this, all these above - a tuft in her ear or sandal... are forbidden to put l'Chatchilah [on Shabbos].

Question: If so, below how do we permit fastening (a loop to close a garment) on a stone or nut? It looks like she schemes!

Answer: There it is evident and everyone knows that she needs it for this (fastening), and there is no suspicion;

However, something that she puts in her mouth, they do not know why she puts it.

Version #1: This is the primary text. Now [the Gemara] asks properly. Granted, for an old woman to go out with a girl's hair, it improves her [appearance]. Therefore, [the Beraisa] needs to teach that she may not go out with it, for even so people laugh at her (perhaps she will remove it and carry it);

However, for a girl to go out with hair of an old woman, this is disgraceful for her! I.e. why must [the Tana] teach that she may not go out [with it]? This is obvious! Since it is disgraceful for her, surely people will laugh at her and she will remove it!

Since he taught that an old woman may not go out with a girl's hair, all the more so a girl may not go out with hair of an old woman! It is difficult to say that the Tana taught "this (an old woman may not...), and all the more so this (a girl may not...)"

Version #2: Some texts say oppositely, "as long as a girl does not go out with hair of an old woman, or an old woman with a girl's hair."

Objection: This is wrong. If so, why does the Gemara ask "what is the reason for a girl with hair of an old woman"? It is normal for the Talmud to teach first what is simpler!

Defense (Rav Pores): It means, but a girl with hair of an old woman, what is the need [for the Tana to teach this]? This is disgraceful for her. She would never go out with it even during the week!

Pesak: The Halachah follows R. Anani, since he said his teaching in the name of R. Yishmael b'Rebbi Yosi, and R. Yishmael is a Tana, and he argues [with our Mishnah].

Support: In matters mid'Rabanan, we follow the lenient opinion.

Explanation: R. Anani permits in a Chatzer, i.e. even in a Chatzer without an Eruv. There is no Chidush in a Chatzer with an Eruv (he would not need to teach this)! If so, women may adorn themselves in the house and Chatzer with rings and ornaments.

Pesak: We do not have a proper Reshus ha'Rabim. All our Reshus ha'Rabim is Karmelis, for our streets are not 16 Amos wide, and they do not have [daily] traffic of 600,000 people. [Therefore] they are like a Chatzer without an Eruv, so our women may adorn themselves with rings and ornaments. So explained R. Tam.

Question (Ri): Even if our Reshus ha'Rabim is considered Karmelis, why are they permitted like in a Chatzer? It says below (120a) regarding a fire, that one may save to a Chatzer without an Eruv, but not to a Karmelis!

Answer (R. Baruch): [In the days of the Gemara] they had true Reshus ha'Rabim. They did not compare Karmelis to a Chatzer with an Eruv, and they forbade Karmelis due to Reshus ha'Rabim;

However, we do not have Reshus ha'Rabim at all. We need not be so stringent about Karmelis.

Support (for Pesak): R. Shimshon found written in the name of Rabbeinu Sar Shalom that something that it is common [for women] to show to one another, it is forbidden. When they are not common, they are permitted;

Our women do not show their ornaments and rings. Therefore, they may go out with them.

Remark: Early Chachamim said that they may go out with them. [They would not heed us if we forbade, so] it is better that they be Shogeg and not Mezid.