ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous dafShabbos 58
(a) A 'Kavla de'Avda' is a badge worn by a slave, to mark his status.
(b) According to Shmuel, our Mishnah speaks about a badge that the slave
attached himself, and which he is therefore not afraid to remove from his
neck and carry; whereas *he* is speaking about one which *his master*
attached, which he will not dare remove.
(c) It is precisely *because* he is afraid of his master, that Shmuel
forbids him to go out with a clay badge sewn to his clothes - even if his
master attached it. Why?
Because the badge may break, and, afraid that his master might notice it,
he will fold up his cloak to cover the tear, and someone who walks in the
street on Shabbos, with his clothes folded up to his shoulders (which is
not the normal way of wearing clothes) is Chayav Chatas.
(d) Shmuel nevertheless permitted Rav Chinena bar Shilo to go out with the
standard cloak to which the badge of subservience was normally attached,
even though he forbade all other Rabbanan to do so, due to the favt that
Rab Chinena bar Shilo was favored by the Head of the Galus, and would not
take to task for going without his badge, should it have broken off.
(a) Until now, we have been dealing with badges made of *clay*, and it is
there that we allowed a slave to go out provided it was his Master who
placed it around his neck. The reason for this is because, even if the
badge were to break, there would be no point in taking the broken pieces
home (since the pieces are valueless). This would not, however, apply to a
metal badge. If a metal badge (which has a certain value) were to break,
the slave would take the badge home, to have it repaired. Consequently, it
is always forbidden for a slave to go out wearing a metal badge, even with
one which his master placed around his neck.
The slave is forbidden to go out with a bell around his neck, in case it
breaks loose, and he carries it home. The bell on his clothes however,
refers to one which has been woven to his clothes, and we have already
learnt that anything which is woven is not included in the decree, because
it is unlikely to break loose, so he can hardly carry it home.
(b) The badge of a slave is not subject to Tum'ah, because it is not an
ornament (which we learn from the vessels which they brought back from
Midyan), but is a symbol of degradation.
(c) 'Zeh ve'Zeh, Ein Mekablin Tum'ah', implies automatically, that it is
badges that are not subject to Tum'ah, but that *vessels* made of the same
material as the badges, would indeed be. Now if the Beraisa was talking
about *clay* badges, then (seeing as the clay that was used for making
badges was plain clay, which had not been strengthened in a furnace), other
vessels would not be subject to Tum'ah either, since clay vessels that have
not been manufactured in a furnace, are not subject to Tum'ah.
Consequently, this Beraisa must be talking about *metal* badges; other
metal vessels, of course, *are* subject to Tum'ah.
(d) Vessels made of stone, animal manure (others explain 'K'lei Gelalim' to
mean marble - see Gilyon ha'Shas) and clay (that has not been baked in a
furnace), are not subject to Tum'ah - even mi'de'Rabbanan.
(a) One may not allow an animal to go out with a clay seal, whether it is
tied around its neck or attached to its apparel.
(b) Nor may one allow it to go out with a bell, whether it is tied around
its neck or attached to its apparel.
(a) A bell fixed to a door is not subject to Tum'ah, because the door and
the house cannot become Tamei, since they are attached to the ground, and
whatever is joined to the ground is not subject to Tum'ah. Consequently,
the bell is not subject to Tum'ah either, because whatever is attached to
something has the same Din as the object to which it is attached.
(b) No! If the bell was Tamei when he fixed it to the door, it does not
lose its Tum'ah. Why not?
Because, since he made no change to the bell itself, his fixing it to the
door is no stringer than a Machshavah, and we have already learnt that a
Machshavah does not have the power to detract from the original act of
construction; for that, one needs a fresh *act* - something which changes
the structure of the article. And until such an act has been performed, the
bell will remain Tamei.
(c) "Kol *Davar* Asher Yavo ba'Esh, Ta'aviru ba'Esh" teaches us that even a
vessel whose function is to make a noise, is subject to the Dinim of Tum'ah
like any other vessel.
(d) Consequently, the Beraisa, which rules that whether the bell is hanging
around the animal's neck or whether it is attached to its apparel, it is
not subject to Tum'ah, must be referring to a bell whose striker has been
removed, which is therefore not a K'li.
1. Chazal have taught that a noise is good for spices, which explains why
they would attach a bell to a spice-mixer.
(b) All of these bells were only subject to Tum'ah as long as their
strikers were attached (since their sole function was for the noise).
2. The bell on a baby's cot was there to lull the baby to sleep.
3. And the bell on the Sefer-Torah mantle used in the children's Cheder,
was to call the children to Cheder.
(c) Bells worn by grown-ups were subject to Tum'ah even when they had no
striker, because their function was purely ornamental.
(a) If a baby's bell would retain its Tum'ah, because 'even a novice can
put it together', then how could the Beraisa say 'ha'Zug ve'ha'Inbal
Chibur', which suggests that, when the striker has been removed, the bell
is incomplete (irrespective of the fact that anybody can put it together)?
(b) The Gemara tries to say that what the Beraisa means is that they are
considered joined, even when they are *not* (because it is easy to put them
together - like Abaye says).
(c) If the blades of the scissors and the knife of the plane *are*
considered joined (to make them one vessel) for Tum'ah, then why is their
being joined *not* effective with regard to the Haza'ah. If, on the other
hand, they are *not* considered joined for Haza'ah, then why *are* they
considered joined for Tum'ah?
The Gemara answers that in fact, whilst the two parts are in use, they are
considered joined min ha'Torah - as regards both Tum'ah and Ha'za'ah. When
not in use, they are not considered joined at all - not regarding the one
nor regarding the other. And it is the Rabbanan who declared regarding
Tum'ah (to render them joined even when they are *not* in use - because of
when they *are*; and regarding Haza'ah (to consider them not joined, even
when they *are* - because of when they are *not*.)
(d) In any event, we see that the Beraisa is speaking about when the
sections *are* joined, thereby substantiating Rava's Kashya on Abaye, and
refuting the contention in b.
(a) According to Rava, the bell remains Tamei even without the striker,
because one can still ring with it by banging on it with a piece of clay.
(b) The striker however, loses its Tum'ah, since it is no longer fit for