Shabbat 58b — the Talmud in English

And

a bell

of a door—

pure,

because the door is attached to the house, and the house is attached to the ground and does not contract impurity, and the bell is subordinate to the door.

A bell

of a door, and he made it into a

bell of a

beast—

impure;

it is fit to contract impurity from this point onward, and it is sufficient that he considered it in order to make it a bell of a beast, because all vessels descend to become fit to contract impurity through thought alone.

A bell

of a beast, and he made it into a door—

it is

even though he attached it to the door and fastened it with nails —

impure.

According to

all vessels descend to their impurity

—to become fit to contract impurity—

through thought

of their owners alone. But

they do not

themselves

ascend from their impurity,

from being fit to contract impurity,

except through a change in the object.

And attaching it to the door does not constitute a change in the body of the bell.

This beraita presents a difficulty against the earlier beraita.

For here we learned that a bell on the neck of a beast contracts impurity.

And we answer:

It is not difficult.

This

that we learned, that a bell of a beast contracts impurity, is speaking in a case

where it has

within it

a clapper,

which is the tongue inside the bell, with which it rattles and produces sound. And the Gemara assumes that in that case it is considered an ornament, fit to contract vessel impurity, as is the law of an ornament, since an ornament was included under vessel impurity even though it is not fit for any other use.

This

that we learned, that it does not contract impurity, is in the case of a bell

that does not have a clapper

inside it, and it is not considered an ornament fit to contract vessel impurity.

And we inquire:

Whichever way you look at it:

If

a bell is considered an ornament , then it is

a vessel

[a utensil],

even though it does not have a clapper,

and it should contract impurity.

But

if

a bell

is not a vessel—

does having

a clapper make it

give it the significance of

“a vessel”?

And we conclude:

No.

The clapper is what gives it importance for contracting vessel impurity, but not by the law of an ornament; rather, by the law of a “functional vessel” , which has a use.

As

Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani said in the name of Rabbi Yonatan.

For Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani said in the name of Rabbi Yonatan: From where do we know that a

vessel that

“produces sound” [ that is, a musical instrument]

[that is, a musical instrument]

among metal vessels is impure?

As it is stated

in the section concerning the purification of the vessels taken from Midian, which they needed to remove from their impurity:

“Everything that will come into the fire

you shall pass through the fire.”

And we expound from the extra word “everything”:

even

a vessel whose entire use is only

“speech”,

that is, it is made to produce sound—

it shall come into the fire!

That is, it must be purified from its impurity [but not through fire; rather, through the sprinkling of the water of the red heifer].

But if the bell has no clapper, it does not produce sound, and it has no practical use; likewise, it is not an ornament, and therefore it does not contract impurity.

And now the Gemara returns to explain the beraita brought on the previous folio:

And we inquire:

In what did you establish

the latter clause of the beraita, that a bell of a beast does not contract impurity?—

In a

bell

that does not have a clapper.

If so,

let us say the middle clause

of the beraita:

And

the slave does not go out

with a bell on his neck. But he goes out

with a bell on his garment. And both this and that,

the bell on his neck and the one on his garment,

contract impurity.

And this presents a difficulty:

if

we establish the words of the beraita as we established them in the latter clause, with regard to the beast, as referring to a bell

that does not have a clapper,

then

what causes

the bell on the slave’s neck and the bell on his garment

to contract impurity?

For they are then unfit to produce sound, as we learned in the beraita that the Gemara now brings:

And we contrast it:

we learned in a beraita:

One who makes bells

bells

for a mortar,

in which the ingredients for the incense are pounded, because producing sound is beneficial and pleasant for the spices,

and for a cradle

of a baby,

and for Torah-scroll coverings,

Torah scrolls,

and for coverings of babies,

which are hung around their necks—

if

they have clappers, they are

impure;

if they do not have clappers, they are

pure.

And if they became impure when they had clappers, and afterward

their clappers were removed,

their impurity still remains upon them,

and they do not have the status of a vessel that broke, which is purified through its breaking .

This beraita presents a difficulty, for it explicitly states that without a clapper the bell does not contract impurity.

And we answer:

These words,

that a bell without a clapper does not contract impurity, apply

to a

bell of

a baby, for it is made for producing sound. Without a clapper it does not produce sound, and it is not considered a vessel.

Without a clapper it does not produce sound and does not have the status of a vessel.

But

a bell of

an adult [ of a man]—

[an adult]—

it is an ornament for him,

and it contracts impurity as an ornament does,

even though it does not have a clapper.

The Master said:

we learned in the beraita:

Their clappers were removed—

their impurity still remains upon them,

because removing the clapper is not considered breaking [and likewise, even though they had not become impure, they are fit to contract impurity].

And we wonder:

For what are they fit—

a baby’s bell, which is made for sound and whose clapper has been removed ? After all, they are fit for nothing; why is it still considered a vessel?

And we answer:

Abaye said: Since an ordinary person can restore it,

without the work of a skilled craftsman, the status of a vessel has not been annulled from it .

Rava raised an objection:

we learned in tractate Parah:

The bell and the clapper

are considered

a joining,

so that they constitute one vessel: if one of them became impure, the other also became impure.

And it is implied from the Mishna that they are considered joined, so that if one of them is removed, the vessel is an incomplete vessel .

And if you say

that the connection mentioned in the Mishna

means this: Even though they are not connected, they are considered as though they were connected

, meaning that even if they became separated, they did not immediately lose their status as vessels capable of contracting ritual impurity. Thus, the Mishna’s reference to a “connection” applies even when they are separated.

This cannot be said.

For

it was taught

in a beraita, a tannaitic source not included in the Mishna

A pair of scissors

for cutting

made in sections

, consisting of separate blades,

and a craftsman’s chisel

, [a plane] whose metal blade craftsmen attach during work to an upper wooden part, and whose parts they separate after the work—this

is considered connected with regard to ritual impurity

, so that if one becomes impure, the other becomes impure as well.

But it is not considered connected with regard to the sprinkling

, meaning that if the water of purification was sprinkled on only one of the two parts, the other part is not purified until the water is sprinkled on it as well.

And we said

and raised the following difficulty concerning this ruling:

What is the meaning of this? If it is considered connected—

then it should also be considered connected for the sprinkling

and it should suffice to sprinkle the water on one of them.

And if it is not considered connected—

then it should not be considered connected even with regard to ritual impurity

and if one became impure, the other should not become impure.

And he said

in response,

Rabba: By Torah law:

When they are being used for work

, since they are normally connected at that time and the two parts require one another, they are

considered connected both with regard to ritual impurity and with regard to the sprinkling.

When they are not being used for work

, since they do not need to be connected,

they are not

considered

connected, neither with regard to ritual impurity nor with regard to the sprinkling

, even if they are actually connected.

And the Sages decreed

that the

ritual impurity

of the two parts, when one of them becomes impure, applies

when they are not being used for work, because of

[the concern that people might confuse this with]

ritual impurity that occurs when they are being used for work.

And

they further decreed

that the sprinkling performed when they are being used for work

does not purify the other part,

because of the sprinkling performed when they are not being used for work.

We learn from here that the term “connected,” as stated in the Mishna and the beraita with regard to ritual impurity, refers to a time when the parts are connected.

If so, a difficulty remains: Why, when the clappers have been removed, does their ritual impurity still remain? Why has their status as vessels not been nullified, when the bell is complete only when it has a clapper?