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 is a badge different from a bell?

(a) TOSFOS (DH Hacha b'Mai Askinan) explains that the Rabanan prohibited a slave to go out with a badge even when it is sewn on, lest he go out with a badge that is not sewn on. However, they permitted him to go 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 permitted to go out with a badge that is sewn to the slave's garment. When the Beraisa says that he may not go out with a badge, it refers to a normal badge which is not sewn to his garment. When the Beraisa says that he may go out with a bell, it refers to the normal type of bell, which is sewn to his garment.

QUESTION: The Beraisa teaches that an animal may not go into Reshus ha'Rabim on Shabbos with a bell, even if it is sewn to its garment. Why is the Halachah more stringent with regard to an animal than with regard to a slave, who is permitted to go out with a bell sewn to his garment?

The answer to this question can be found in the Gemara earlier (54b), as RASHI and TOSFOS here point out. One may not take an animal with a bell into Reshus ha'Rabim on Shabbos, since it appears as though he is bringing the animal to the marketplace.

However, this Gezeirah applies only to a bell on an animal. We do not find that it applies to a badge on an animal; an animal wearing a badge does not appear as though it is being taken to the marketplace (see Tosfos DH Lo, in contrast to the LEVUSHEI SERAD OC 305:12). Why, then, is one prohibited to take out an animal with a badge sewn on its garment? (MAHARSHA, MAHARAM)

(a) The MAHARAM and MAHARSHA suggest that the Beraisa does not refer to a badge sewn on the animal's garment. One indeed is permitted to take out such an animal on Shabbos. Rather, the Beraisa refers to a badge that is not sewn on the animal's garment (or a bell that is not sewn on the animal's garment). One may not take the animal out, lest the badge (or bell) fall and the owner pick it up and carry it.

When Rashi and Tosfos mention the Gemara's reason that it appears as though the animal is being taken to the marketplace, they mean that in the case of a bell, even if it would be sewn on the garment, one may not take the animal out for this reason.

(b) The LEVUSH (OC 305:12) writes that a badge serves no purpose on an animal's garment. Consequently, it has the status of a load (and not an adornment or garment) and the animal may not be taken out with it on Shabbos.

that it is uncommon to sew a bell to an animal's garment, and thus the Rabanan did not permit an animal to go out with that type of bell (lest one let the animal go out with a bell that is not sewn on) just as 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) suggests another explanation. When one walks with an animal that has a bell, he gives the appearance that he is taking the animal to the market place to be sold. In contrast, a slave with a bell gives no such appearance.

QUESTION: The Gemara says that the Beraisa (58a) is discussing an animal's bell that does not have a clapper, and that is why it cannot become Tamei. The Gemara asks why an animal's bell without a clapper cannot become Tamei; if the bell is an ornament and has the status of a Kli, then it should become Tamei even without a clapper.

However, we see in the very next line that the Gemara knows that there is a Beraisa which clearly states that bells of various usages are Mekabel Tum'ah only if they have a clapper. Why, then, is the Gemara bothered by the fact than an animal's bell is not Mekabel Tum'ah only if it does not have a clapper? (MAHARAM)

ANSWER: When the Gemara discusses the bell of an animal, the Gemara assumes that the bell has no use other than that of a decorative ornament. Consequently, whether or not the bell has a clapper should make no difference, since the bell is an ornament with or without a clapper.

In contrast, the bells mentioned in the Beraisa that the Gemara quotes are bells which have the status of Kelim, and which are used specifically for making noise. Therefore, when those bells do not have a clapper, they are not complete utensils and 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 not an ornament for the animal, but it is an object, a utensil, that man uses for some purpose. For what purpose does man use the bell? He uses it by listening for its sound in order to know where his animal is. (M. KORNFELD. This seems to be the intention of the Maharam's answer as well.)