THOUGHTS ON THE DAILY DAF
brought to you by Kollel Iyun Hadaf of Har Nof
Rosh Kollel: Rav Mordecai Kornfeld
Ask A Question about the Daf
1) A SLAVE GOING OUT INTO "RESHUS HA'RABIM" WITH HIS BADGE
QUESTION: The Beraisa says that a slave *may* go out on Shabbos into Reshus
ha'Rabim with a bell that is sewn to his garment. However, the same Beraisa
says that he may *not* go out with a slave's badge, presumably even if it
is sewn on to his garment. Why not? Why is a badge different from a bell?
2) AN ANIMAL GOING OUT INTO "RESHUS HA'RABIM" WITH ITS BELL
(a) TOSFOS (DH Hacha b'Mai Askinan) explains that the Rabanan prohibited
going out with a badge even when it is sewn on, lest one go out with a
badge that is not sewn on. However, they permitted going out with a bell
that is sewn on because it was very common to sew bells to garments, and
the Rabanan did not want to trouble people to remove their bells from their
clothing before Shabbos. It is much less common to sew a slave's badge to
his garment, and therefore the Rabanan did enact a decree that he may not
go out with it on Shabbos even if it is sewn on.
(b) The RITVA and RAN explain that it is indeed *permitted* to go out with
a badge that is sewn on to the slave's garment. When the Beraisa says that
he may not go out with a badge, it is referring to a *normal* badge which
is not sewn to his garment. When the Beraisa says that he may go out with a
bell, it is referring to the *normal* type of bell, which *is* sewn on to
QUESTION: The Beraisa teaches that an animal may not go out into Reshus
ha'Rabim on Shabbos with a bell, even if it is sewn on to its garment. Why
is the Halachah more stringent with regard to an animal, prohibiting it
from going out with a bell sewn to its garment, than with regard to a
slave, who is permitted to go out with a bell sewn to his garment?
(a) The MAHARAM and MAHARSHA explain that it is not common to sew a bell to
an animal's garment, so the Rabanan did not permit going out with that type
of bell (lest one let the animal out with a bell that is not sewn on) just
like they did not permit a slave to go out with a badge sewn to his garment
(see previous Insight, (a)).
(b) However, TOSFOS (DH Lo Tetzei, and 54b, DH Mishum) seems to suggest
another explanation. An animal wearing a bell gives the appearance that it
is being taken to the market place. A slave wearing a bell gives no such
3) CAN A BELL BECOME TAMEI
QUESTION: The Gemara says that our Beraisa (58a) is talking about an
animal's bell that does not have a clapper, and that is why it cannot
become Tamei. The Gemara then asks why an animal's bell without a clapper
should not be Tamei -- if the bell is an ornament and considered a Kli,
then it should be Tamei even *without* a clapper.
However, the Gemara, in the next line, reveals that it is aware of a
Beraisa which clearly states that bells of various uses are Mekabel Tum'ah
*only* if they have a clapper! Why, then, is the Gemara so perturbed by the
fact than an animal's bell is not Mekabel Tum'ah only if it does not have a
ANSWER: When discussing the bell of an animal, the Gemara thought that the
bell has *no use* other than being *decorative*. If so, it should not make
any difference whether or not it has a clapper, since it is decorative
The bells mentioned in the Beraisa which the Gemara then brings, on the
other hand, are bells which are *Kelim*, and which are used specifically
for making noise. Therefore, without a clapper, those bells are not
complete utensils and they are not Mekabel Tum'ah.
Similarly, when the Gemara answers its question about the animal's bell by
saying that an animal's bell is considered a Kli because it makes noise, it
means that since it is a Kli and not just an ornament, it is Mekabel Tum'ah
only if it has a clapper and produces a sound. That is, an animal's bell is
indeed not an ornament for the animal, but it is an object that man uses.
How does man use it? By listening for the bell to know where his animal is.
(M. Kornfeld. This seems to be the intention of the Maharam's answer as