Shabbat 58b (נח:) — the Talmud in English

And

a bell

of a door –

pure,

because the door is attached to the house, the house is attached to the ground and is not susceptible to ritual impurity, and the bell is subordinate to the door.

A bell

of a door, and he made it into a

bell

for an animal –

impure.

It is fit to become susceptible to ritual impurity from that point onward, and it is sufficient that he intended to make it a bell for an animal, because all vessels become fit to receive ritual impurity through the owner’s intention alone.

A bell

for an animal, and he made it into a door:

even

though he attached it to the door and fixed it with nails –

it is impure.

Since

all vessels descend into their state of ritual impurity

—that is, they become fit to receive ritual impurity—

through intention

of their owners alone. But

they do not

rise

from their state of ritual impurity

—from being fit to receive ritual impurity—

except through a physical alteration.

Attaching it to a door does not constitute an alteration in the body of the bell.

This beraita presents a difficulty for the beraita cited above.

Here we learned that a bell around an animal’s neck is susceptible to ritual impurity.

And we answered:

It is not difficult.

This

statement that we learned, that a bell for an animal is susceptible to ritual impurity, is speaking in a case

where it has

within it

a clapper,

the tongue inside the bell with which it rattles and produces sound. The Gemara assumes that in this state it has the importance of an ornament, fit to receive the ritual impurity of vessels, as is the law of an ornament. For ornaments were included in the laws of ritual impurity of vessels, even though they are not fit for any other use.

This

statement that we learned, that it is not susceptible to ritual impurity, is referring to a bell

that does not have a clapper

inside it, and therefore it does not have the status of an ornament with regard to receiving the ritual impurity of vessels.

And we raised a difficulty:

Whichever way you look at it:

If

a bell has the status of an ornament , then

it is a vessel,

[a utensil]

even though it does not have a clapper,

and it should receive ritual impurity.

But

if

a bell

is not a vessel—

does the fact that it has

a clapper make it

give it the importance of

“a vessel”?

And we conclude:

No.

The clapper is what gives the bell importance for receiving the ritual impurity of vessels, but not under the law of an ornament; rather, under the law of a “vessel of function” , which has a use.

As in the statement of Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani in the name of Rabbi Yonatan.

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 derive that

a vessel that

“produces sound”

[that is, a musical instrument]

among metal vessels is impure?

As it is stated

in the passage concerning the purification of vessels taken from Midian, which had to be removed from their impurity:

“Everything that comes into the fire

you shall pass through the fire.”

And we derive from the inclusion of the word “everything”:

Even

a vessel whose entire use is only

“speech,”

that is, one made to produce sound—

it shall come into the fire!

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

But if the bell has no clapper, it does not produce sound and has no practical use; likewise, it is not an ornament. Therefore, it is not susceptible to ritual impurity.

The Gemara now returns to explain the beraita cited on the previous page:

And we raised a difficulty:

In what case did you establish

the latter clause of the beraita, which states that a bell for an animal is not susceptible to ritual impurity?—

With a

bell

that has no clapper.

If so,

say the middle clause

of the beraita:

And

the slave does not go out

with a bell around his neck. But he may go out

with a bell attached to his garment. And both

the bell around his neck and the bell attached to his garment

are susceptible to ritual impurity.

This is difficult:

If

we establish the statement of the beraita, as we established its latter clause concerning an animal, as referring to a bell

that has no clapper,

then

how do

the bell around the slave’s neck and the bell attached to his garment

receive ritual impurity?

After all, in that case they are unfit to produce sound, as we learn in the beraita that the Gemara now cites:

And we juxtapose

the following beraita:

One who makes bells

bells

for a mortar

[in which spices for the incense are ground, since the production of sound benefits and improves the spices],

and for a cradle

of an infant,

and for Torah-scroll covers

Torah scrolls,

and for infants’ cloths

that hang 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 remains upon them; they do not have the status of a broken vessel, which becomes pure when broken .

This beraita presents a difficulty, for it explicitly states that without a clapper the bell is not susceptible to ritual impurity.

And we answered:

This applies

to a bell without a clapper that is not susceptible to ritual impurity—

to a

bell

for an infant, for it is made for the clapper.

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

But

a bell for a

grown person

[an adult]—

it is an ornament for him,

and it receives ritual impurity under the law of an ornament,

even though it has no clapper.

The Master said:

We learned in the beraita:

Their clappers were removed—

their impurity remains upon them,

because removal of the clapper is not considered breakage [and likewise, although they had not become impure, they remain fit to receive ritual impurity].

And we wondered:

What use are they fit for,

a bell for an infant, made for producing sound, whose clapper was removed ? After all, they are fit for nothing; why is it still considered a vessel?

And we answered:

Abaye said: Since an ordinary person can reattach it,

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

Rava raised an objection: We learned in tractate Para: The bell and the clapper are considered

a connection,

that is, one vessel, so that if one of them becomes impure, the other also becomes impure.

It follows from the Mishna that they are considered attached, so that if one of them is removed, the vessel is an incomplete vessel .

And if you would say

that the connection mentioned in the Mishna

means as follows: Even though they are not attached, they are considered as attached,

so that even if they became separated, they did not immediately lose the status of utensils capable of contracting ritual impurity. And the Mishna’s intention in saying “connection” is that this applies even when they are separated.

This cannot be said.

For

it was taught

in a beraita

A sectional pair of scissors,

a cutting utensil

made of sections,

which is made of separate blades,

and a chisel of a carpenter, [

a plane] which craftsmen customarily attach—the metal chisel during work—to an upper wooden part, and after the work they separate the parts—this is

a connection with regard to ritual impurity,

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

But it is not a connection with regard to sprinkling,

so that if the waters of the חטאת were sprinkled only on one of the two parts, the other part does not become pure until they are sprinkled on it as well.

And we said,

raising an objection to this ruling:

What is your position? If it is a connection—

it should also be a connection with regard to sprinkling,

so that it should suffice to sprinkle on one of them.

And if it is not a connection—

it should not be a connection even with regard to ritual impurity,

so that if one becomes impure, the other should not become impure.

And

in response to this,

Rabba said: According to Torah law:

During the time of work,

when they are customarily attached and the two parts require one another, they are

a connection both with regard to ritual impurity and with regard to sprinkling.

When not during the time of work,

since they do not need to be attached,

it is not

considered

a connection neither with regard to ritual impurity nor with regard to sprinkling,

even if they are actually attached.

And

the Sages

decreed concerning the ritual impurity

of the two parts when one became impure

when not during the time of work, because of [

lest it be confused with]

ritual impurity that occurs during the time of work.

And

they further decreed

concerning sprinkling that takes place during the time of work

that it does not purify the other part,

because of sprinkling that takes place when not during the time of work.

We learn from here that the “connection” mentioned in the Mishna and in the beraita with regard to ritual impurity refers to a time when the parts are attached.

And if so, there is a difficulty: Why, when their clappers were removed, does their impurity still remain? Why did they not lose the status of utensils? After all, the pair of cymbals is complete only when it has a clapper?