1)

(a)A 'Kavla de'Avda' - is a badge worn by a slave, to mark his status.

(b)Shmuel disagrees with Rebbi Avahu. According to him - 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, and which he would not dare remove.

(c)Shmuel forbids a slave to go out with a badge sewn to his clothes precisely because he is afraid of his master - 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)He nevertheless permitted Rav Chin'na 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 - because Rav Chin'na bar Shilo was favored by the exilarch, and would not have been taken to task for going without his badge, even if it had broken off.

2)

(a)The Beraisa forbids a slave to go out with a metal badge in the street, even if his master fixed it to his clothes - because, should it break, he mat carry it home to have it repaired. Whereas until now, we have been dealing with badges made of clay, which the slave was permitted to wear in the street, provided it was his master who placed it around his neck, because, even if the badge were to break, there would be no point in taking the broken pieces home (since the pieces are valueless, and cannot be repaired).

(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)We prove that this Beraisa must be talking about a metal badge, from the statement that follows* 'Zeh ve'Zeh (whether it is worn around the neck or attached to the clothes) Ein Mekablin Tum'ah' - because this implies that it is badges that are not subject to Tum'ah, but that vessels made of the same material as the badges, would 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; and other metal vessels are subject to Tum'ah.

(d)The three kinds of vessels that are not subject to Tum'ah, even mi'de'Rabbanan - are vessels made of stone, of animal manure (others explain 'K'lei Gelalim' to mean marble - see Gilyon ha'Shas) and clay (that has not been baked in a furnace).

3)

(a)A slave is forbidden to go out with a bell around his neck - in case it breaks loose, and he carries it home. But he is permitted to go out with one attached to his clothes - because we are referring to one that has been woven to his clothes, and Rav Huna Brei de'Rav has taught that anything which is woven is not included in the decree, because it is unlikely to break loose for him to carry home.

4)

(a)One may not allow one's animal to go out, if, hanging round its neck or attached to its apparel is ...

1. ... a clay seal.

2. ... a bell.

5)

(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)A Tamei bell which one took from an animal and fixed to a door, lose its Tum'ah because, since he made no change to the bell itself, his fixing it to the door is no better 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)We learn from the Pasuk "Kol Davar Asher Yavo ba'Esh, Ta'aviru ba'Esh"- that even a vessel whose function is to make a noise, is subject to the Dinim of Tum'ah like vessels that perform other positive tasks.

(d)Consequently, when the Tana of the Beraisa writes (about a bell on an animal) 'Zeh ve'Zeh Ein Mekablin Tum'ah', meaning 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 - he must be referring to a bell whose clapper has been removed, which is therefore not a K'li.

6)

(a)A bell that was attached ...

1. ... to a spice-mixer - conformed with Chazal, who have taught that a noise is good for spices.

2. ... to a baby's cot - was meant to lull the baby to sleep.

3. ... Sefer-Torah covers (for Sifrei-Torah used to teach the Cheder-children) - was meant to call the children to Cheder.

(b)All of these bells (and those attached to baby's cloths worn round the baby's neck) were only subject to Tum'ah - as long as their clappers were attached (since their sole function was for the noise).

(c)Bells worn by grown-ups - were subject to Tum'ah even when they had no clapper, because their function was purely ornamental.

7)

(a)Abaye initially thinks that a baby's bell, whose clapper has been removed, retains its Tum'ah, because even a novice can put it together. Rava ask him from the Beraisa 'ha'Zug ve'ha'Inbal, Chibur' - which suggests that, when the clapper has been removed, the bell is incomplete (despite the fact that anybody can put them together).

(b)We attempt to explain 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).

(c)Rava however, refutes this explanation, due to the continuation of the Beraisa 'Mispores shel Perakim ve'Izmal shel Rehitni, Chibur le'Tum'ah ve'Ein Chibur le'Haza'ah'. Now - if the blades of the scissors and the knife of the plane were considered joined (to make them into one vessel) regarding Tum'ah, then why is their being joined not effective with regard to Haza'ah. If, on the other hand, they are not considered joined for Haza'ah, then why are they considered joined for Tum'ah?

(d)We resolve the problem - by making a distinction between whilst the two parts are in use, when 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 (mon ha'Torah) - 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).

8)

(a)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. (that the sections are considered joined, even when they are not, because it is easy to put them together).

(b)According to Rava, the bell remains Tamei even without the clapper - because one can still ring with it by banging on it with a piece of clay.

(c)The clapper however, loses its Tum'ah - since it is no longer fit for use.