Shabbat 59a (נט.) — the Talmud in English

And we answer:

Rather, Rava said:

the reason that a bell without a clapper is considered a utensil is that

since

the bell is fit

to be struck against a shard of earthenware;

it still is a utensil that produces a sound, as it did initially. Therefore, its status as a utensil capable of becoming impure has not been nullified.

It was also stated: Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Hanina, said: Since it is fit to be struck against earthenware.

Whereas

Rabbi Yohanan said:

the bell’s status as a utensil was not nullified

since it is fit to scoop water for a child.

It is sufficient that it has a use for something other than its previous use in order for it to be considered a utensil.

And we challenge this:

B

ut

does Rabbi Yohanan not require

that some use remain in the utensil

resembling its first function

in order for it to remain fit to become impure?

But wasn’t it taught

in a beraita: It is written with regard to the impurity of a zav’s seat:

“And any utensil upon which he sits

the zav shall become impure.”

One might have thought

even

a measuring pan

that the zav overturned, a measure used for measuring

a se’a,

intended for measuring and not for sitting,

and sat upon it. Or

a

a half-se’a pan,

a measure of half a se’a [a se’a is six kav, and a tarkav is three kav, which is the meaning of its name: two and a kav],

and sat upon it;

one might have thought

it would be impure,

that measuring utensil, with the severe impurity of the zav’s seat [midras], which is a primary source of impurity and renders even a person and utensils impure?

The verse states:

[Leviticus 15:4] “Every bed upon which the zav lies shall become impure, and every utensil

that

he sits upon

shall become impure.”

“That he sits upon” is written with a tzeirei, in the sense of an ongoing present, and not “that he sat upon” with a kamatz, in the past tense. This teaches us that only

that which

[a utensil]

is designated for sitting,

that people sit upon continually, and not one upon which he happened to sit on a single occasion, becomes impure with the severe impurity of midras when the zav sits upon it.

Excluded

is

this

utensil, which is intended for measuring and not for sitting; it becomes impure only with the lesser impurity of contact.

Because

they say to him,

to the zav who sat upon it:

Stand

from it,

and let

us use it for

our work, to measure with it. Therefore, it is not considered a seat.

Rabbi Elazar says:

Only

with

regard to the impurity of

midras

does it not become impure, because

they say to him,

to the one sitting upon it:

Stand, and let us use it for our work; since it is not fit for sitting, it does not acquire the severe impurity of a zav’s midras.

But

one does not say with regard to

a utensil impure with the impurity of a primary source of impurity, when it is

“impure with corpse impurity”:

“Stand, and let us use it for our work”

its previous work. That is, even if a utensil impure with corpse impurity broke and is no longer fit for its original work, it remains impure with its previous impurity as long as it is still fit for another function.

And Rabbi Yohanan says: One also says with regard to

a utensil that is

impure with corpse impurity: “Stand, and let us use it for our first work.”

And every utensil impure with corpse impurity that broke to the point that it is no longer fit for the work for which it was used when it became impure is pure.

If so, Rabbi Yohanan’s statements are contradictory: with regard to the impurity of a bell, he said above that it is impure even without a clapper, since it is fit to scoop water with it. Here he says that the utensil is impure only if it is possible to perform a function resembling its first work.

And we conclude:

Reverse the first statement.

The statement of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Hanina, above, with regard to a bell that must be fit for a function resembling its original work, is the statement of Rabbi Yohanan.

And we are astonished:

What did you see,

what did you see

that you reversed the first statement,

and established Rabbi Yohanan’s view as requiring that it be capable of performing a function resembling its first work?

Reverse the latter statement:

reverse the names of the disputants in the second teaching and say that the statement of Rabbi Yohanan, who requires a function resembling its first work, is that of Rabbi Elazar, whereas Rabbi Yohanan holds that it is not necessary for it to be capable of performing a function resembling its first work, as he said in the first teaching!

And we answer: The second teaching should not be reversed,

for we have heard Rabbi Yohanan say that he requires

in order for the utensil to become impure that it be possible to perform with it a use

resembling its first work.

As we learned

in tractate Kelim:

An animal’s sandal,

which is made for it so that its hooves will not be injured by stones,

if made of metal, is impure, but if made of wood, it is pure.

but if it is made of wood, it is pure .

And we inquire about it:

For what is it fit,

the sandal, as a utensil? After all, a utensil becomes impure only if it is fit for human use, and ordinarily a person does not wear an animal’s sandal.

And if you consider it an animal’s use and say that it becomes impure under the law of an animal’s utensil, there is no adornment for an animal.

Rav said:

An animal’s sandal is impure because it is a utensil fit for human use in pressing circumstances. For it is

fit for drinking water with it in

a time of

war,

when ordinary utensils for drinking are unavailable.

And Rabbi Hanina said: It is fit

for

applying oil with it in wartime.

And Rabbi Yohanan said:

It is fit

when a person is fleeing

the person

from battle,

at which time he

places it

the sandal

on his feet and runs

with it

over thorns and briers.

We learn from Rabbi Yohanan’s words that since it was designated for an animal to wear, it becomes impure [as a utensil fit for human use in pressing circumstances] only because it is fit to be worn. But if it were fit for human use only for drinking from it or receiving oil in it in pressing circumstances, it would not become impure.

The same applies with regard to the nullification of the impurity of any impure utensil: if it is no longer fit for its first work, it is no longer impure.

And we inquire about it:

What is the difference between Rav and Rabbi Hanina?

The difference between them

is a case

where the sandal has become repulsive:

according to Rav, it is not impure, because it is not fit for drinking from at all. According to Rabbi Hanina, it is impure, since it is still fit for applying oil with it.

And what difference is there between

Rabbi Yohanan and Rabbi Hanina?

The difference between them is a case where it is heavy,

the sandal is heavy and it is not fit for use in fleeing.

We learned in the Mishna:

And

a woman may not go out

with a golden city.

And we inquire about it:

What

does “she may not go out”

with a ‘golden city’ mean?

Rabba bar bar Hana said that Rabbi Yohanan said: A golden Jerusalem,

a gold ornament on which Jerusalem is depicted [and which is attached to the garment].