Explanation: Even without the reason that it is an ornament for a man, it is Tamei due to "Kol Kli Ma'aseh."

Consequence: Both Rava and Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak are established [even] like R. Nechemyah. He is not Metamei [a ring with a stamp] due to a woman's ornament, rather, [according to Rava] due to a man's ornament, or [according to Rav Nachman] because it is "Kol Kli Ma'aseh";

The Mishnah teaches li'Tzedadin (rings with a stamp and rings without a stamp is a Tachshit are Tamei for different reasons) both according to Rava and Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak. (All agree that rings without a stamp are Tamei due to a woman's ornament.)

Explanation #1 (Rashi): [We ask] for what is it proper?! (It is not proper for anything.) It is a load!

Question (Ri): If so, what was the answer "since a woman parts her hair with it"? Due to this is it not a load? It is not clothing, and it is not an ornament!

Explanation #2 (Ri): "For what is it proper?", i.e. why does she normally go out with it during the week? Rav Yosef said [that she parts her hair with it];

Afterwards, it asks on Shabbos, for what is it proper? Granted, normally she carries it because she needs to parts her hair with it. On Shabbos it should be a load, since it is not clothing, and it is not an ornament!

Explanation #1 (Rashi, below): On Shabbos, for what is it proper? On Shabbos she does not part her hair with it!

Objection #1 (Ri): What is his source that on Shabbos she may not part her hair with it?

Objection #2: Why do we ask this? Even if it would be permitted [to part her hair on Shabbos], we can ask that it is a load!

Assertion (Ri): She inserts the needle in the hairnet and compresses the hairnet lest her hairs fall outside their binds.

Support: Now it is fine that it is like Biris, which holds her socks lest they fall. This is unlike Rashi explained [that she uses the needle to bind hair that leaves the hairnet].

Explanation #1 (Rashi): Just like there we are not concerned lest she take it off to show it, since it is made for modesty, also here we should not be concerned, for the same reason!

Objection #1 (Ri): Kevalim (leg braces), one may not go out with them on Shabbos, for we are concerned lest she take them off, because they are an ornament, like I will explain (63b), even though they are made for modesty, just like Biris;

All (Kevalim and Biris) are the same (both are leg braces), just Biris is on one leg, and Kevalim are on two, like we say below (63b).

Objection #2: Why should it mention here that Biris is Tahor? It should have said "it should be like Biris, and be permitted!)

Explanation #2 (Ri): It means as follows. It should be like Biris, with which one may go out, because it is Tahor, because it is not an ornament. It is not decoration for a woman, since it is only on one leg;

It is like a ring of Kelim, for it is only for the sake of socks. Similarly, this needle, which is Tahor because it is like a ring of Kelim, should be permitted, for it is not an ornament!

Question: Why don't we answer here that it has a gold plate at the top, like we answer according to the other answer below?

Answer: If she would bind her hair with it, she would never put it opposite her forehead, and it is not considered an ornament, rather, a plate.

Question (against Explanation #2 - Rashba): Since the needle with which she binds her hair is Tahor, why does it say above (52b) "but regarding Tum'ah, both [needles] are the same" (both are Tamei)?

There is a distinction even regarding complete needles. That not used to bind her hair is Tamei, and the one used to bind is Tahor!

Answer: We must say that also regarding Tum'ah, he asks that it should be Tahor like Biris, which is Tahor, and also it should be permitted to go out with it.

Observation: Now there was no need at all to say that she parts her hair with it, just the Gemara explains the truth.

Explanation: They heard the sound of a sandal with nails.

Question (Ri): The Seifa teaches "this is the general rule. Anything that one may benefit from, we may send it on Yom Tov", and the Gemara explains "anything that one may benefit from during the week";

One may benefit from a nailed sandal during the week. Why may we not send it on Yom Tov?

Answer: [Chachamim] were stringent because disaster came through it, just like in our Sugya R. Elazar b'Ribi Shimon forbade using it to cover a Kli or support a bed board, even though other Kelim she'Melachtam l'Isur may be moved l'Tzorech Gufo u'Mkomo;

"This is the general rule" taught there [in the Seifa] refers only to a shoe that was not sewn.

Assertion (Ri): Even Rabanan of R. Elazar, who permit moving [a nailed sandal] l'Tzorech Gufo u'Mkomo, forbid to send it on Yom Tov.

Implied question: Sending it for Simchas Yom Tov is considered like l'Tzorech Gufo, since we permit sending Davar she'Melachto l'Isur!

Answer: Since disaster came through it, there is no Simchas Yom Tov [through sending it].

Implied question: In Beitzah (37a) and below (124a) we establish this like Beis Shamai, for Beis Hillel say that Mitoch (since) burning was permitted for a need [of food preparation on Yom Tov], it was permitted also not for a need!

Answer: Even so, Yom Tov resembles Shabbos very much, since other matters are permitted only because they were permitted for a need of Ochel Nefesh.

Implied question: In Sukah (2b), regarding "R. Yehudah is Machshir until 40 or 50 Amos", it does not ask "he permits 50. [Need he teach that he permits 40?!]"

Also in Kesuvos (57a), regarding "but Chachamim say, one may keep his wife even two or three years without a Kesuvah" [it does not ask "they permit three. Need they teach that they permit two?!"]

Answer (Ri): Wherever it is obvious that he means even more, the Gemara does not ask. However, here we cannot explain four or five and even more, for if so, you [totally] permitted a nailed sandal!

Also in Nidah (37b), it asks [so] regarding "how long is her Kishuy (prenatal blood that we attribute to birth)? R. Meir says, even 40 or 50 days [before the birth]", because we cannot explain even more, for it is unreasonable to consider blood to be of Kishuy from the beginning of her pregnancy.

In all of these cases, [the Makshan] understands that the latter Shi'ur is precise. Therefore he asks that [the Tana] should say the latter Shi'ur, and not say the former Shi'ur.

Also below (126b) in the Perek "we may clear out four or five boxes", it asks "five are permitted. [Need we teach] four?! [the Makshan] understands that we do not permit more [than five]" due to toil on Shabbos;

Rav Chisda answers that we permit four from a small storehouse, and five from a big storehouse.

Shmuel answers that [we permit] four or five, and even more, like people say. He holds that one may clear out even more, as long as he does not finish the storehouse, i.e. [he does not bare] the floor, lest one even out nooks [in the floor], like it says there.

Question: In Kesuvos (60a), we say that a child may continue nursing even four or five years, and it does not ask [why he needs to teach four];

[Five] is precise, for it asks there from "his bundle is on his shoulder", and answers that this is the same Shi'ur [as five years]!

Answer: [The Gemara knew that five] is for a weak child, and [four] is for a strong child.

Implied question: It says in Chulin (132b) that a Kohen butcher is exempt from Matanos (giving the foreleg, jaw and stomach to a Kohen) from animals that he slaughters for two or three weeks. After this, he is obligated to give Matanos [and the Gemara did not ask]!

Answer (Ri): It mentions two according to Rebbi, who holds in Yevamos (64b) that two times makes a Chazakah, and [it mentions] three according to R. Shimon ben Gamliel.