Shabbat 116

ושל דלת טהורה

but a door bell is clean.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The door being part of the house, it is not a utensil, and hence cannot become unclean; the bell, in turn, is part of the door. ');">¹</span>

של דלת ועשאו לבהמה טמאה של בהמה ועשאו לדלת אף על פי שחיברו לדלת וקבעו במסמרים טמא שכל הכלים יורדין לידי טומאתן במחשבה ואין עולין מידי טומאתן אלא בשינוי מעשה

A door [bell] appointed for an animal['s use] is unclean; an animal [bell] appointed for [fixing] to a door, even if attached to the door and fastened with nails, is unclean; for all utensils enter upon their uncleanness by intention, but are relieved from their uncleanness only by a change-effecting act?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 238, n. 9. Here too the bells were left unchanged. ');">²</span>

לא קשיא הא דאית ליה עינבל הא דלית ליה עינבל

— There is no difficulty: in the one case [the reference is] where it has a clapper: in the other where it has no clapper.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If it has a clapper it is susceptible to defilement as a utensil. ');">³</span>

מה נפשך אי מנא הוא אע"פ דלית ליה עינבל אי לאו מנא הוא עינבל משוי ליה מנא

What will you: if it is a utensil, then even if it has no clapper [it is unclean]; if it is not a utensil, does the clapper make it one? Yes, as R. Samuel b. Nahmani said in R. Johanan's name, Viz.: How do we know that a metal object which causes sound is unclean?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., it ranks as a utensil. ');">⁴</span>

אין כדר' שמואל בר נחמני א"ר יונתן דאמר ר' שמואל בר נחמני אמר ר' יונתן מנין למשמיע קול בכלי מתכות שהוא טמא שנאמר (במדבר לא, כג) כל דבר אשר יבא באש תעבירו באש אפי' דיבור יבא באש

Because it is said, Everything [dabar] that may abide the fire, ye shall make go through the fire:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Num. XXXI, 23. ');">⁵</span>

במאי אוקימתא בדלית ליה עינבל אימא מציעתא ולא בזוג שבצוארו אבל יוצא הוא בזוג שבכסותו וזה וזה מקבלין טומאה אי דלית ליה עינבל מי מקבלי טומאה

even speech [dibbur — i.e., sound] must pass through the fire.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In order to cleanse it, which shows that it is liable to defilement. This connects dabar (E.V. thing) with dibbur, speech, i.e., a sound-producing object is a utensil. ');">⁶</span>

ורמינהו העושה זגין למכתשת ולעריסה ולמטפחות ספרים ולמטפחות תינוקות יש להם עינבל טמאין אין להם עינבל טהורין ניטלו עינבליהן עדיין טומאתן עליהם

How have you interpreted it? as referring to [a bell] without a clapper! Then consider the middle clause: 'Nor with a bell around his neck, but he may go out with a bell on his garments, and both can contract uncleanness.' But if it has no clapper, can it become defiled? Surely the following contradicts this: If one makes bells for the mortar,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In which the spices are pounded for use as frankincense in the Temple. Sound was thought to add to the efficacy of crushing; v. Ker. 6b. ');">⁷</span>

ה"מ בתינוק דלקלא עבידי ליה אבל גדול תכשיט הוא ליה אע"ג דלית ליה עינבל:

for a cradle,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To amuse the baby or lull it to sleep. ');">⁸</span>

אמר מר ניטלו עינבליהן עדיין טומאתן עליהן למאי חזו אמר אביי הואיל שההדיוט יכול להחזירו

for the mantles of Scrolls,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of the Torah. It was customary to adorn these with bells. ');">⁹</span>

מתיב רבא הזוג והעינבל חיבור

or for children's mantles, then if they have a clapper, they are unclean; if they have no clapper,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' From the very outset. ');">¹⁰</span>

וכי תימא הכי קאמר אע"ג דלא מחבר כמאן דמחבר דמי והתניא מספורת של פרקים ואיזמל של רהיטני חיבור לטומאה ואין חיבור להזאה

they are clean. If their clappers are removed,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' After the bells were defiled. ');">¹¹</span>

ואמרינן מה נפשך אי חיבור הוא אפילו להזאה ואי לא חיבור הוא אפילו לטומאה נמי לא

they still retain their uncleanness.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because they do not lose the status of utensils and become as broken utensils through the removal of the clapper. ');">¹²</span>

ואמר רבה דבר תורה בשעת מלאכה חיבור בין לטומאה בין להזאה שלא בשעת מלאכה אינו חיבור לא לטומאה ולא להזאה וגזרו על טומאה שלא בשעת מלאכה משום טומאה שהיא בשעת מלאכה ועל הזאה שהיא בשעת מלאכה משום הזאה שלא בשעת מלאכה

— That is only in the case of a child, where its purpose is [to produce] sound.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hence without a clapper its purpose is not fulfilled, and it is not a utensil. ');">¹³</span>

אלא אמר רבא

But in the case of an adult, it is an ornament for him even without a clapper. The Master said: 'If their clappers are removed, they still retain their uncleanness.' What are they fit for?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That they are not regarded as broken utensils. ');">¹⁴</span> Said Abaye: [They are still utensils,] because an unskilled person can put it back. Raba objected: A bell and its clapper are [counted as] connected.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And rank as a single utensil, so that if once becomes unclean the other is too. (This is, of course, when they are together.) Similarly, if one is besprinkled (v. Num. XIX, 18f), the other becomes clean. This shows that when they are separated, each is but a fragment of a utensil, though an unskilled person can replace it, and should therefore be clean. ');">¹⁵</span> And should you answer, This is its meaning: Even when they are not connected, they are [counted as] connected,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Exactly as the sense in Abaye's explanation. ');">¹⁶</span> — surely it was taught: A shears of separate blades<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'joints'. ');">¹⁷</span> and the cutter of a [carpenter's] plane are [counted as] connected in respect of uncleanness, but not in respect of sprinkling. Now we objected, What will you: if they are [counted as] connected, [they should be so] even in respect of sprinkling too; [if they count] not as connected, they should not [be so] even in respect of defilement either? And Rabbah answered: By Scriptural law, when in use they are [counted as] connected in respect of both defilement and sprinkling; when not in use, they are [counted as] connected in respect of neither defilement nor sprinkling. But they [the Rabbis] enacted a preventive measure in respect of defilement when they are not in use on account of defilement when they are in use; and in respect of sprinkling, when they are in use, on account of when they are not in use!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For notes v. supra 48b and 49a. Now, obviously this must all refer to where the parts are joined, since we compare these utensils when not in use to same when in use. Hence it is implied that when not actually together they do not become defiled even by Rabbinical law, because each is regarded as a fragment, though all unskilled person can join them. ');">¹⁸</span> Rather said Raba,