Shabbat 52B

טהורות.

are ritually pure.

אמר רבי יצחק נפחא: בבאין מנוי אדם לנוי בהמה.

R' Yitzḥak Nappaḥa said: Our Mishnah 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.

ורב יוסף אמר: הואיל ואדם מושך בהם את הבהמה. מי לא תניא: מקל של בהמה, של מתכת מקבל טומאה. מה טעם? הואיל ואדם רודה בהן. הכא נמי, הואיל ואדם מושך בהן.

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.

וטובלן במקומן: והאיכא חציצה!

And we learned in our Mishnah: 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 Talmud 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 mikveh to completely surround the chain.

אמר רבי אמי: בשריתכן.

R' Ami said: The Mishnah 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.