1)

(a)Rava and Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Chanina finally attribute the bell retaining its Tum'ah (even after the clapper has been removed) to the fact that it can still be used - by striking it with a piece of clay. Rebbi Yochanan maintains that a bell retains its Tum'ah, since it is still fit to be used - to feed water to a child. Rava and Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Chanina require the bell to still be usable for its original function; whereas Rebbi Yochanan does not. According to him, as long as it is fit to be used in some way, it remains Tamei.

(b)This does not mean that a child's bell will be Mekabel Tum'ah Lechatchilah, once the clapper has been removed - because the Amora'im are only discussing why the original Tum'ah remains, not whether the bell can now become Tamei or not; as far as becoming Tamei is concerned, we have already learned that, once the clapper has been removed, it is no longer subject to Tum'ah.

2)

(a)We learn from the future tense used by the Torah in the Pasuk (with regard to Tum'as Mishkav u'Moshav) "ve'Chol Asher Yishkav Alav", and "Yeishev Alav" - that these Tum'os only become effective if the bed and the chair are used exclusively for lying or sitting on, but not if they have other uses, and one 'borrows' them (as it were) to use for lying or sitting on. In that case, the owner will say to him 'Amod ve'Na'aseh Melachtenu!', and um'as Mishkav and Moshav do not apply. And this also applies to the Din of retaining its Tum'ah, once it breaks. It will only remain Tamei Medras (Mishkav or Moshav) as long as its original function remains (i.e.for sitting or lying on), but not if it now has a new use, and the owner will say to whoever is lying or sitting on it 'Amod ve'Na'aseh Melachtenu!'

(b)Rebbi Elazar confines this Din to Tum'as Mishkav and Moshav. According to Rebbi Yochanan, the principle of 'Amod ve'Na'aseh Melachtenu' (with regard to retaining Tum'ah) applies equally to Tum'as Mes - i.e. a vessel only remains Tamei Mes as long as it is still fit to be used in a way that is similar to its original use.

(c)This contradicts what Rebbi Yochanan said earlier - that even if the bell is fit for a child to drink from, it retains its Tum'ah. In fact, it conforms with Rava and Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Chanina, who required the bell to be used for ringing - similar to its original use.

3)

(a)The Beraisa states that a metal horse-shoe is subject to Tum'ah. The Amora'im ascribe various possible functions to a metal horse-shoe, all in war: Because it can be used 1. as a drinking-cup; 2. to anoint with; Rebbi Yochanan explains that the horse-shoe is subject to Tum'ah only because it is fit for a soldier to put on his own feet - to help him to escape from the battle-front (a function that is similar to its original one). He disagrees with the other Amora'im, who do not require a function that is similar to the original one.

(b)This will help us to resolve the above contradiction in Rebbi Yochanan - by amending the Machlokes between Rebbi Yochanan (on the one hand) and Rava and Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Chanina (on the other), by switching their opinions (rather than Rebbi Yochanan and Rebbi Elazar).

(c)The shoe cannot be subject to Tum'ah cannot be because it can be replaced on the horse's foot, since there is no Din of ornament by an animal (and we have already learnt - 52a. & b. - that whatever serves the animal exclusively, is not subject to Tum'ah).

(d)

1. The first reason in 1a. (that shoe can still be used - by striking it with a piece of clay) will not apply - if the shoe is disgusting to use for drinking, it (in which case, it will not be subject to Tum'ah), even though the other two reasons still do apply (and it will still be subject to Tum'ah).

2. And Rebbi Yochanan's reason will not apply to a heavy horse-shoe, which would only impede anyone wearing it, in his attempt to run away. Consequently, such a horse-shoe will not be subject to Tum'ah.

4)

(a)Rebbi Meir holds that an Ir shel Zahav is considered a burden, and not an ornament (presumably because, due to its immense value, it is not usually worn) - Consequently, a woman who goes out with one on Shabbos, is Chayeves; according to the Chachamim, it is an ornament, which Chazal forbade her to go out with - because she may take it off to show her friends, and subsequently carry; so if she does, she is Peturah. Whilst Rebbi Eliezer maintains that, it is usually aristocratic women who wear them, and aristocratic women do not usually take off their ornaments to show them off Consequently, she is permitted to go with them in the street.

(b)Rav forbids a woman to go out with a 'Kelila', a head-band worn across the forehead; whereas Shmuel permits it. According to the first Lashon, they both agree that a silver or golden 'Kelila' is Asur. What they argue over - is whether a woman may go out with a head-band made of a strap, but set with gold and precious stones. Shmuel permits it, because seeing as it basically a head-band consistsing of a strap, a woman is unlikely to take it off to show her friends; whereas according to Rav, the most prominent part of the band is the gold and the precious stones, in which case, she will.

(c)According to Rav Ashi, who maintains that they both permit a head-band made of a strap, but set with gold and precious stones, they argue over a silver or golden head-band, which Shmuel permits because (like Rebbi Eliezer by an Ir shel Zahav), it is an aristocratic woman who wears a silver head-band, and aristocratic women do not tend to take off their ornaments to show their friends. Note: This concession does not extend to other ornaments - see Tosfos DH 'Ma'an'.

(d)If Rav permitted a woman to go out with a head-band, it is a proof for the second Lashon, that their Machlokes is by a silver head-band, but that, by a strap head-band, Rav agrees with Shmuel - because according to the first Lashon, there is no type of head-band that Rav permits.

5)

(a)The name of the great, tall lame man who arrived in Neherda'a from Eretz Yisrael - was Levi, who Darshened that K'lila is permitted.

(b)Rav understand - that Rebbi Efes, the Rosh Yeshivah, must have died, to be succeeded by Rebbi Chanina. This meant that Levi, who was Rebbi Chanina's superior, had nobody to learn from, which explains his arrival in Bavel.

(c)Until now, Levi had remained in Eretz Yisrael - only in order to keep Rebbi Chanina company. Rebbi Chanina had been appointed by Rebbi as his successor, but had declined to accept the post in deference to Rebbi Efes, who was over two years his senior. Nevertheless, on account of his prominence, Rebbi Chanina sat outside the Beis ha'Medrash, where Levi joined him.

(d)Had Rebbi Chanina died, Rav reckoned - Levi would have remained in Eretz Yisrael, under Rebbi Efes, who was older than him. So it must have been Rebbi Efes who died. And besides, Rebbi Chanina could not possibly have died before having taken over the position of Rosh Yeshivah - in order that the words of the Tzadik, Rebbi, who had appointed him Rosh Yeshivah, should materialize, since the Pasuk says in Iyov "ve'Sigzar Omer ve'Yakum Lach".

6)

(a)When Levi Darshened in Neherda'a that K'lila was permitted - twenty-four women emerged wearing a K'lila, and when Rabah bar Avuhah permited it in Mechuza, eighteen women wore it in one district alone.

(b)Rav Yehudah Amar Shmuel permitted a 'Kamra' (an exquisite belt) on Shabbos, which, according to the first explanation, is made of leather and is permitted 'like a golden cloak', and which Rav Safra compared to to a golden cloak. We are not afraid that one may come to take off the Kamra to show to one's friends - because one does not tend to remove a belt for any reason, since that will result in one's clothes falling down.

(c)According to the second Lashon, a Kamra is made of silver, and Rav Safra compared it to a belt of Kings.

(d)The Chidush is - that it is considered an article of clothing despite the fact that most ordinary people did not wear such expensive belts, because 'all of Yisrael are like princes'.

7)

(a)Ravina asked Rav Ashi whether one one may wear a Kamra on top of an ardinary belt - to which he gave the ambiguous reply 'Trei Hemyanei Ka'amrat'! (though Ravina probably understood what he meant from Rav Ashi's intonation). Note: that the She'eilah is whether one may wear a Kamra on top of a Hemyana, implying that two belts of the same kind are obviously fobedden (and this is also clear from the following proof).

(b)We can prove that he meant to forbid two belts and not to permit them from the Sugya later (Daf 120a) which lists the eighteen garments that Rebbi Yossi permits one to wear to save them from a fire, and only one kind of belt is included in the list. Had two kinds of belts been permitted, then the Gemara should have listed nineteen garments (see also Tosfos DH 'T'rei').

(c)'Amar Rav Ashi, Hai Risuki, I Is Lei Mefarchiyasa, Shari, I Lo, Asur' - meaning 'That wide strip of cloak (something like a scarf), is permitted, only if it has straps with which to tie it; if not, it is forbidden' (since it may fall off, and he will come to carry it).

(d)The Tana also forbids a woman to go out with 'Katla'. A Katla might have been a sort of clasp in the shape of a crescent, which held the top ends of her dress together. It might also have been - a sort of a napkin that a woman tied around her neck by means of straps that were threaded through loops sewn on its top. It was set with gold making it extremely valuable, and it hung below her neck to prevent the food that she ate from falling on to her clothes.

8)

(a)A 'Nezem' is a nose-ring, and a 'Taba'as', a finger-ring.

(b)Rebbi Zeira reconciles our Mishnah, which implies that a woman who goes out with a signet-ring on Shabbos is Chayav Chatas, with the Beraisa, which lists a ring - with or without a signet - among a woman's ornaments, in which case, she is permitted to wear it - by connecting the Mishnah and Beraisa with the Machlokes between Rebbi Nechemyah and the Rabbanan. Our Mishnah, which renders a woman Chayeves for going out with a signet-ring, holds like Rebbi Nechemyah, who considers the signet the main part of the ring; whereas the Beraisa, which lists a signet-ring among a woman's ornaments, holds like the Chachamim, who go after the ring, and not after the signet.

(c)Rebbi Nechemyah go after the seal and not after the ring - in connection with Tum'ah. A corral ring with a metal signet, he says, is subject to Tum'ah, because he goes after the signet.

9)

(a)According to Rebbi Nechemyah, the criterion for the Tum'ah of ...

1. ... the wooden yoke of an ox, with metal yoke-pins is - the metal yoke-pin.

2. ... a wooden sales-stand which has metal nails is - the metal nails.

3. ... a large wooden scales with metal chains is - the metal chains.

(b)The reason for this is - because Rebbi Nechemyah always goes after the accessories (Consequently, in the reverse case, if the accessories were made of wood and the yoke, the sales-stand and the scales of metal, then they would all be Tahor (see Tosfos DH 'Rebbi Nechemyah').

(c)In all of these cases, the Rabbanan go after the main object, and not the accessories. Consequently, if the yoke ... is made of metal, it is Tamei, and if it is made of wood, it is Tahor (irrespective of what the accessories are made of).

10)

(a)Rava answers the above Kashya regarding the discrepancy (in 9b) between our Mishnah and the Beraisa regarding a woman being Chayav for wearing a signet-ring in the street on Shabbos, with the words (li'Tzedadin Katani). What he means is - that the author of the Beraisa too, is Rebbi Nechemyah. When the Beraisa says 'Bein she'Yesh Aleha Chosem, Bein she'Ein Aleha Chosem' it is not referring entirely to women's ornaments. In fact, what the Tana means is that if the ring has a signet, then it is a man's ornament (in which case, a woman will be Chayav for wearing it, and if it does not, then it is a woman's ornament.

(b)Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak too, establishes the Beraisa, as well as our Mishnah, like Rebbi Nechemyah. When the Beraisa says 'Bein she'Yesh Aleha Chosem ... ' - it does not relate to the Reisha, which discusses women's ornaments, but to the Din of Tum'ah, to tell us that, even though a signet-ring is not a woman's ornament, it is nevertheless subject to Tum'ah, since it is a functional vessel (and the Torah writes in Bamidbar "Kol K'li Ma'aseh"). And 'Tachshitei Nashim' mentioned in the Reisha of the Beraisa, refers to 'she'Ein Aleha Chosem' only.