Explanation (R. Chananel): The Halachah follows Rav, who says that both for decoration and for guarding is forbidden, since Abaye, Rava and Ravina, who are Basra, answer according to [Rav] the case of [a Parah Adumah] whose owner tied a halter on it.

Support: Also, the Halachah follows Rav [against Shmuel] regarding Isurim.

Consequence (Rav Pores): Therefore, all excessive guarding is forbidden, e.g. a cow with a halter, and all decoration, an animal may not go out with it.

Distinction: However, calves may go out with a halter, like it says below, and a horse may go out with a bridle, for this is normal, or a halter, but both of them, i.e. a bridle and a halter, is forbidden.

One may place the bridle or halter on the horse's head on Shabbos. This is not forbidden due to moving, for it is Muchan for the animal.

Pesak: A person who leads a horse in Reshus ha'Rabim must be careful that the end of the rope not come out of his hand a Tefach, and what is between his hand and the horse he lifts from the ground a Tefach, for we say so below (54b);

It is permitted to wind the rope of the halter around the animal's neck and go out, for Rav Huna's calves and mules of Rebbi's house go out wound.

Question (Rashba): What proof does he bring from Shmuel's teaching that people asked Rebbi [whether an animal may go out with Shemirah proper for a different animal]? Seemingly, it connotes that [the rejection] above "no, to exclude a white camel with a halter", all this is from Shmuel's words! (If so, he permits excessive guarding.)

Observation: He could have answered "Chananya taught this."

Implied question: In Bava Kama (55b) it connotes that Mosirah is an inferior guarding!

Answer: That is only for an ox.

Explanation #1 (Rashi): He intends for decoration. Rashi explained so also in our Mishnah.

Question (Rashba, Rav Pores): Above it connotes that all forbid for decoration!

Answer (and Explanation #2 - Rav Pores): They argue about the following. Rav Huna holds that it is guarded also through winding, for if the animal wants to flee, he will grab through the windings of the halter, and it is not a load;

Shmuel holds that it is not guarded through winding.

Explanation: Rav Huna answers "wound to be pulled." There is a gap between the halter and the neck, that it is easy to [put his hand there and] pull when he wants;

Shmuel holds that it is specifically to be pulled. There is rope hanging from the halter (i.e. part is not wound, so it will be easy to pull).

Explanation #1 (Rashi): It became Tamei while it was for man.

Objection and Explanation #2: There was no need to explain so. Even after it was designated for an animal, it receives Tum'ah. It ceases to receive Tum'ah only if it was changed through an action;

This is proven in Sukah (13b) regarding one who harvested to eat, and reconsidered to use it for Sechach. Rashi himself explained so below (58b)!

Implied question: A clump of Se'or (sourdough) that was designated for sitting (it will fill a hole in a seat) is Tahor (Pesachim 45b)!

Answer (Ri): The case is, it was changed through an action.

Explanation: [The Mishnah] needs to teach "in their place", that we are not concerned lest Haza'ah (the Mei Chatas) fall on the animal, and [the water] will be disqualified;

A Mishnah (Parah 12:3) teaches that if he intended to sprinkle on a person, and he sprinkled on an animal, if there is still [Mei Chatas] on the hyssop, he may not [sprinkle] again (the water left on was disqualified).

Question (R. Eliezer): Why don't we ask here "who mentioned Tevilah?!", like it asks below (57a) on what the Mishnah taught "she may not immerse until she loosens them"?

Answer (R. Tam): We do not ask, because our Mishnah discusses the law of Kelim. It distinguishes between one Kli and another, which is permitted to go out with and which is forbidden;

By the way, it teaches other laws of Kelim, that we sprinkle on them in their place and immerse them in their place.

This is the Tana's style, like (below, 66a) an amputee may go out with his Kav (false foot). If it has a receptacle for tufts, it is Tamei.

Distinction: Below (57a) we discuss laws of Kelim, and it teaches us a law of a woman immersing. It asks properly "who mentioned Tevilah?!"

Explanation #1 (Rashi): The ring is inserted firmly in the chain, and water does not enter there.

Remark (Ri): He must say that sometimes they remove it and do work with them (the ring and chain) by themselves. If they are always fixed in the animal's neck, all would be considered one Kli, and it is not a Chatzitzah!

Explanation #2 (Rav Pores): [The Gemara asks] "there is a Chatzitzah!" because it clings to the animal's neck.

Implied question: Why does he [establish that it was beaten, so it is loose, and] not establish that [from the beginning] there were big holes [in the chain]?

Answer: It is not normal for a chain to be like this.

Assertion (Ri): This means to gird his garments. They are wide, and he binds them even with his loins, similar to what Rashi explained [below] "to tie the sleeves with it."

Question: It has a receptacle to hold the Chosam (the part used to stamp)!

Answer: This is not a receptacle, for we say that a receptacle made to be filled [all the time] is not a receptacle.

Assertion (Ri): We do not ask according to Abaye (below, 123a), for he would explain "it does not have a hole" means that its hole or point was removed;

Rather, he asks according to Rava (who says that if it is not a Kli for Tum'ah, one may not move it on Shabbos). He cannot explain so, like is proven below (123a).

Question (Ri): Since the Makshan did not know that we discuss unfinished needles, even without this (R. Eliezer saying that regarding Tum'ah, they are the same whether or not they have a hole) we can challenge Rava (from the Beraisa itself, which says that one may move it on Shabbos even if it has no hole), like it asks below (123a. We needed to answer for Rava that the Beraisa discusses unfinished needles!)

Note: Meginei Shlomo answers that Rava equates Tum'ah and Shabbos only for Kelim that broke, but not for unfinished Kelim. We could not challenge Rava from the Beraisa itself. Perhaps it does not discuss needles that had a hole, and it broke!