Shabbat 59a — the Talmud in English

And we explain:

Rather, Rava said:

that the reason a bell without a clapper is considered a vessel is— ")

since

the bell is fit

to strike it against earthenware

, and it is still a vessel that produces a sound, as it was at the outset. Therefore, the status of a vessel for becoming impure has not been annulled from it .

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

Whereas

Rabbi Yohanan said:

the status of a vessel was not annulled from the bell

since it is fit to scoop water with it for a child .

It is sufficient that it has a use for something other than its former use for it to be considered a vessel.

And we object:

And

if

Rabbi Yohanan does not require

that a use remain in the vessel

resembling the original labor,

in order that it remain fit to become impure?

But it was taught

in a beraita: It is written with regard to the impurity of the seat of one afflicted with a flux:

“And every vessel upon which

the one afflicted with a flux sits shall become impure.”

One might have thought

even

an overturned kapha

of the one afflicted with a flux, a measure with which one measures

a se’a,

which is designated for measuring and not for sitting,

and he sat upon it.

Or

an overturned tarkav,

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

and he sat upon it,

might

that measuring vessel become impure

with the severe impurity of the seat [midras] of one afflicted with a flux, which is a primary source of impurity that imparts impurity even to a person and to vessels?

The verse states: [Leviticus 15:4] “Every bed upon which the one afflicted with a flux lies shall become impure. And every vessel

upon which he lies, and every vessel

which

he sits upon

shall become impure.” “Upon which he sits,” written with a tsere, in the language of an ongoing present, and not “upon which he sat,” with a kamatz, in the language of the past, teaches us that only

The phrase “that he sits upon” is written with a vowel indicating the present, ongoing action, and not with a vowel indicating the past—teaching us that only

that [

vessel]

which is designated for sitting,

upon which one sits regularly, and not one upon which it happened that he sat on a single occasion, is rendered impure with the severe impurity of midras by the fact that the one afflicted with a flux sat upon it.

Excluded

is

this

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

Since

one says to him, to the one afflicted with a flux who sat upon it:

to the man afflicted with a flux who sat upon it:

Stand

from it,

and let

our

labor be done with it, that we may 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

one says to him,

to the one who is upon it:

Stand, and let our labor be done; since it is not fit for sitting, it does not receive the severe impurity of the midras of one afflicted with a flux .

But,

and one does not say with

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

“impure with corpse impurity”:

“Stand, and let our labor be done”

the former [labor] . That is, even if the vessel impure with corpse impurity broke and is no longer fit for its original labor, it is nevertheless still impure with its former impurity, as long as it is still fit for another labor.

And Rabbi Yohanan says: One also says with

a vessel that is

impure with corpse impurity: “Stand, and let our first labor be done”.

And every vessel impure with corpse impurity that broke until it is no longer fit for the labor it had at the time of its becoming impure is pure.

And if so, Rabbi Yohanan’s statements are contradictory: concerning 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; whereas here he says that the vessel is impure only if it is possible to perform with it something resembling its original labor.

And we conclude:

Reverse the first one.

And the words of Rabbi Yosei son of Rabbi Hanina above, concerning a bell that must be fit for something resembling its labor, are the words of Rabbi Yohanan.

And we wonder:

And what did you see,

what did you see

that you reversed the first one, and established Rabbi Yohanan’s position as requiring that one be able to perform with it something resembling its original labor?

and established that Rabbi Yohanan's position is that it must be possible to perform with it a function resembling its original work?

Reverse the latter one,

reverse the names of the disputants in the second statement, and say that Rabbi Yohanan’s words, that something resembling its original labor is required, are Rabbi Elazar’s words, whereas Rabbi Yohanan holds that it is not necessary that they be able to perform with it something resembling its original labor, as he said in the first statement!?

And we explain: There is no need to reverse the second statement,

for we have heard Rabbi Yohanan say that he requires

in order to render the vessel impure that it be possible to perform with it a use that is

resembling its original labor.

For we learned

in tractate Kelim:

An animal’s sandal,

which they make for it so that its hooves will not be injured by stones—

one of metal is impure,

and one of wood is pure .

And we inquire concerning it:

For what is it fit

as a vessel? For a vessel becomes impure only if it is fit for a person, and ordinarily a person does not wear an animal’s sandal.

And if you consider it an implement for an animal and it becomes impure by the law of an animal’s vessel, there is no ornament for an animal .

Rav said:

An animal’s sandal is impure by virtue of its being a vessel fit for a person’s use in pressing circumstances. For it is

fit for drinking water from it in

times of

war ,

when there are no ordinary vessels for drinking.

And Rabbi Hanina said: It is fit

for

anointing with oil during war.

And Rabbi Yohanan said:

It is fit

when he is fleeing

the person

from battle,

for then he

places it

the sandal

on his feet, and runs

in it

over thorns and thistles .

And we learn from Rabbi Yohanan’s words that since it was designated for wearing by an animal, it receives impurity [as a vessel fit for a person’s use in pressing circumstances] only because it is fit for use as footwear. But if it were fit for a person only for drinking from it or receiving oil in it in pressing circumstances, it would not receive impurity.

And the same law applies with regard to the annulment of every impure vessel from its impurity: if it is no longer fit for its original labor, it is no longer impure.

And we inquire concerning it:

What is the difference between Rav and Rabbi Hanina?

There is a difference between them

such as

when it is repulsive,

the sandal. According to Rav, it does not become impure, because it is not fit for drinking from at all. But according to Rabbi Hanina, it becomes impure, for it is still fit for anointing with it .

And what difference is there between

Rabbi Yohanan and Rabbi Hanina?

There is a difference between them when it is heavy,

the sandal is heavy and is not fit to be used for fleeing.

We learned in the Mishna:

And the woman shall not

go out

with a golden city.

And we inquire concerning it:

What

does “she shall not go out” mean

with a “golden city”?

Rabba bar bar Hana said in the name of Rabbi Yohanan: A golden Jerusalem,

a golden ornament upon which Jerusalem is depicted [and which is attached to the garment] .