THE KAVLA OF SLAVES
Answer #2 (to Question 3:j, 57B - Shmuel): The Mishnah discusses (forbids going out with) a signet [of slavery; normally, it is made of dried mud].
Contradiction: But Shmuel permits a slave to go out with a signet on his neck, but not on his garment!
Resolution #1: Shmuel discusses a signet made by the master - the slave fears to remove it [for the master would consider this rebellion], the Mishnah discusses a signet the slave made for himself (he might remove it and carry it in Reshus ha'Rabim).
Question: If Shmuel discusses a signet made by the master, he should permit even if it is on his garment (he fears to remove it)!
Answer: We are concerned lest it break, and the slave will fear [lest his master assume that he intentionally broke it] and fold his garment onto his shoulder [to cover up its absence];
(R. Yitzchak bar Yosef): If one walks in Reshus ha'Rabim on Shabbos with his garment folded onto his shoulder (this is not the way to wear it, it is a load), he is Chayav Chatas.
Shmuel (to R. Chinena bar Shila): All Rabanan of the Reish Galusa's house may not go out with a coat with a signet, except for you. (Rashi - it is a sign of submissiveness to the Reish Galusa - if anyone else was not wearing it, the Reish Galusa would be upset; Rashba - the Reish Galusa levied a tax on important coats, the signet shows that the tax was paid; anyone except for R. Chinena would be afraid if it fell off.)
(Shmuel): A slave may go out with a signet on his neck, but not on his garment.
Support (Beraisa #1): A slave may go out with a signet on his neck, but not on his garment.
Contradiction (Beraisa #2): A slave may not go out with a signet on his neck or on his garment; neither of them is Mekabel Tum'ah;
He may go out with a bell on his garment, but not on his neck - both of these are Mekabel Tum'ah.
An animal may not go out with a signet or bell on its neck or garment - neither of them is Mekabel Tum'ah.
Suggestion: Perhaps Beraisa #1 discusses signets made by the master, and Beraisa #2 discusses signets the slave made for himself!
Rejection: No, both discuss signets made by the master - Beraisa #1 discusses signets of mud (if it breaks, the fragments are worthless), Beraisa #2 discusses metal signets:
(Rav Nachman): A slave may not go out with something that his master is insistent about [that it not get lost - perhaps it will break and the slave will carry the pieces];
He may go out with something that his master does not care about.
Support (Beraisa #2): ...Neither of them is Mekabel Tum'ah.
We understand this if Beraisa #2 discusses metal signets - they are not Mekabel Tum'ah, but other metal Kelim are;
But if Beraisa #2 discusses mud signets, why must it teach that they are Tehorim - all mud Kelim are Tehorim!
(Mishnah): Kelim made of stone, dung or dirt are not Mekabel Tum'ah, not mid'Oraisa nor mid'Rabanan.
Conclusion: Beraisa #2 discusses metal signets.
WEARING BELLS ON SHABBOS
(Beraisa #2): He may go out with a bell on his garment, but not on his neck.
Question: Why is a bell on his neck forbidden?
Presumably, we are concerned that it will fall and he will carry it - the same applies to a bell on his garment!
Answer: The case is, it is woven into the garment (surely, it will not fall):
(Rav Huna brei d'Rav Yehoshua): Anything woven is permitted. (Above (57A), we said that because it is not tight, it need not be removed when immersing - but the Heter also shows that we are not concerned lest something fall from it.)
(Beraisa #2): An animal may not go out with a signet or bell on its neck or garment; neither of them is Mekabel Tum'ah.
Question: A bell of an animal is Mekabel Tum'ah!
Contradiction (Beraisa #3): A bell of an animal is Mekabel Tum'ah, a doorbell is Tahor;
If a doorbell was put on an animal, it is Tamei; if a bell of an animal was put on a door, even if it was nailed in, it is [still] Tamei.
This is because a Kli is Mekabel Tum'ah through intent [to use it for something that is Mekabel Tum'ah], but it does not cease to Mekabel Tum'ah until an action is done [that hinders its original use].
Answer: A bell of an animal is Mekabel Tum'ah only if it has a clapper.
Question: If it is a Kli, it is Mekabel Tum'ah even without a clapper; if it is not a Kli, will a clapper make it a Kli?!
Answer: Yes, a clapper makes it a Kli!
Question (R. Shmuel bar Nachmani): What is the source that a metal Kli that makes noise is Mekabel Tum'ah?
Answer: "Kol Davar Asher Yavo ba'Esh..." - even Dibur (making noise) is included. (These words discuss Kashering vessels - since noise cannot affect Kashrus, we apply the Drashah to the subject of the continuation of this verse, i.e. Tum'ah.)
Question: Beraisa #2 cannot discuss a bell without a clapper!
(Middle clause of Beraisa #2): One may go out with a bell on his garment, but not on his neck - both of these are Mekabel Tum'ah.
A bell without a clapper is not Mekabel Tum'ah!
(Beraisa): The following bells are Mekabel Tum'ah only if they have a clapper - a bell for a grinder (noise is beneficial when grinding spices for Ketores), crib, cloth over a Sefer [Torah] or around a child's neck.
If the clapper was removed, it is still Tamei.
Answer: Regarding a child, it is Mekabel Tum'ah only if it has a clapper - Beraisa #2 discusses an adult, a bell is a Tachshit (ornament) for him even without a clapper.
(Beraisa): If the clapper was removed, it is still Tamei.
Question: [Why is it Tamei -] what use is a bell without a clapper?
Answer #1 (Abaye): Because a commoner can put back the clapper [it is still considered connected].
Objection (Rava - Mishnah): A bell and a clapper are connected.
Suggestion: Perhaps this means, even if they are [physically] separated, it is as if they are connected (like Abaye taught)!
Rejection (Beraisa): Scissors that come apart, and a [carpenter's] plane (the blade can be removed from the wood) are connected regarding [Kabalas] Tum'ah, but not regarding Haza'ah.
Question: If they are considered connected, they should be connected even for Haza'ah; if they are not connected, they should not be connected for Tum'ah!
Answer (Rabah): Mid'Oraisa, when they are being used, they are connected, at other times they are not;
Chachamim decreed [to consider them connected for] Tum'ah when they are not being used on account of when they are being used, and they decreed [to consider them disconnected for] Haza'ah when they are being used on account of when they are not.
(The decree to consider them connected for Tum'ah is when they are together [but not in use] - when they are separate, they are not considered connected at all!)