Question #2 (against Rashi - Ri): In order that Tum'ah that it already had not leave, the reason that a commoner can return it it properly suffices, without the reason that it is proper to bang it;

This is like we find in Brachos (50b) regarding a bed. Even if it is taken apart, the Tum'ah does not leave it unless it was stolen, or part was lost, or brothers or partners divided it, for [then] it is not destined to be joined;

We need the reason of banging only to receive Tum'ah from now and onwards, for this reason that a commoner can return it, does not help at all to receive Tum'ah, like it says there "if he returned it, it receives Tum'ah from now and onwards." (Mere ability to return it did not suffice.)

Also according to Abaye, he wanted to say that because a commoner can return them, both of them, a bell and clapper, receive Tum'ah from now and onwards.

Support (for Rashi - Ritzva): A Beraisa in the Tosefta in Kelim (Bava Metzi'a, 1:13) teaches that one who makes a bell for a grinder, crib or scarf [or bib] of children, if the clappers were taken, they are Tehorim;

Inference: The bells are Tehorim.

According to Rashi, it is fine that they are Tehorim. They do not receive Tum'ah from now and onwards. However, according to the Ri, why are they Tehorim?

Answer (Ri): There are several Beraisos in the Tosefta that argue with our Gemara. (Some texts of the Tosefta say "Tamei", and the Gra says that this is the proper text.)

Assertion (Rashba): You are forced to say that this is when he did not designate it, since it says "it is proper." This connotes merely being proper, without designation.

Support #1: Also, if he designated it, R. Yosi bar Chanina would not argue!

Support #2: Also, if he designated it, even if it never had a clapper, it receives Tum'ah!

Support #3: Also, if he designated it, what was the contradiction in R. Yochanan? There you are forced to say that he did not designate it, for if he designated it, even regarding Midras we do not say "get up, and we will do our work"!

Question (Rashba): Below (95b), regarding a Kli punctured enough for olives to leave, it is Tahor regarding holding olives, and it is still a Kli for holding pomegranates, Rashi explained "if he designated it for pomegranates"!

Answer #1: If not for Rashi's Perush there, it would be fine. (I.e. it is a Kli for holding pomegranates even without designation, i.e. it receives Tum'ah. In what way is it Tahor regarding holding olives? (R. Akiva Eiger asks so.) Perhaps it is Tahor only if he designated it for olives - PF).

Answer #2: Even according to Rashi, here it is more proper [for Tum'ah] through [the possibility to use it for] drinking, since initially it was an absolute Kli, and also now a commoner can return it. We should say that through a small matter, that it is still proper to drink water with it, it is considered a Kli even without designation;

Also according to [Rava] who says "because he can bang it", for he requires [a use] akin to its initial Melachah, it is fine in every case, even if normally we do not require designation;

Here it is fine that [the possibility to use it for] drinking water does not help, since it is still destined for its initial Melachah, to return the clapper, and [one who wants to use it] says [to one using it for another use] "get up, and we will do our work"!

All the more so, if normally we require designation, it is even better.

Question (Ri, against Rashi): Why did [the Gemara] bring the Beraisa of a half-Kav measure? It is not relevant to the argument of R. Elazar and R. Yochanan! (Rashi says that they argue about a broken Kli.)

Answer (Ri): Rather, the Riva's Perush is correct. We say about Midras "get up from this half-Kav, and we will do our work";

It cannot be Tamei Midras through you sitting on it, since it is not special for this, like the Beraisa says;

And we do not say about Tamei Mes "get up from giving water through this bell or animal shoe, and we will do our work to put in a clapper to make noise or put the shoe on the animal's foot";

Rather, it is Tamei Mes through giving [to drink], even though it is not special for this, and it receives Tum'ah, for it is considered a Kli through giving water.

R. Yochanan says that we say even [regarding Tamei Mes "get up..."], for we require that it is proper for its initial Melachah. Being proper for another Melachah does not help at all to receive Tum'ah;

However, banging a bell on Cheres, or putting an animal shoe on one's foot when he flees from the battle, this is like the initial Melachah. Therefore, it receives Tum'ah.

It is not relevant to say "get up and we will do our work", for also [what he does now] is its work.

Explanation: A wooden [animal shoe] is not proper for all these matters below (giving water from it, anointing from it, and wearing it when fleeing), for the animal normally ruins it.

Alternative text: The Rashbam's text says "a sandal of an animal or of metal", and [the latter] refers to a sandal of plasterers below (66a).

Question: A bell that never had a clapper, we do not say that it is Tamei because it is proper for giving water, and here it is considered like a bell that never had a clapper, for since it was made for an animal, it does not receive Tum'ah!

Answer: Also from the beginning it is made to drink water in war or to anoint, just primarily it is destined for an animal, and one says to him "get up, and we will do our work" according to the opinion that requires akin to the initial Melachah.

Question: If so, it should be Tamei Midras, and a Tosefta in Kelim (Bava Basra 2:11) teaches that there are three Sandalim - of a man is Tamei Midras, of metal and of an animal is Tamei Mes. This implies that it is Tahor from Midras!

Explanation (R. Tam): This is not "Nushka", like Rashi explained, for it says in Sotah (49b) what are crowns of brides? Ir Shel Zahav;

Inference: [Ir Shel Zahav] is made like a crown.

Implied question: It says there that at the time of Titus' army (brought against Yerushalayim), they decreed about crowns of Chasanim and Kalos. Here we forbid only on Shabbos!

Answer (R. Tam): They decreed only about crowns of Chasanim and Kalos, but not for other people.

Explanation (Ri): Shmuel permits here only Kalila, and similarly R. Eliezer permits only Ir Shel Zahav, which not all women normally wear them, only an esteemed woman;

However, other women's ornaments are forbidden even for esteemed women, for we do not distinguish between women.

Support (Ri, for himself): Above (46b), Ula said "why [may one move ornaments in a Chatzer, even though the Tana forbids wearing them in the Chatzer]? Because they have the law of a Kli;

[If you will say that Shmuel permits all ornaments to an esteemed woman], what forced [Ula] to say so? Since they are proper for important women, even Rabanan who forbid Ir Shel Zahav to an important woman, they agree about other ornaments according to Shmuel, who permits Kalila even according to Rabanan!

Explanation: This is [kings'] clothing. They have no other belt. Similarly, this Kamra (prestigious belt) is a woman's clothing. She will not take it off to show it off.

Explanation #1 (in Rashi): It is forbidden.

Implied question: Below (120b), among the 18 Kelim one may wear are counted Punda and a belt, and Rashi explained there that Punda is a belt!

Answer: [Two belts are permitted] when a garment interrupts between them, but two belts one on top of the other are forbidden;

This is unlike a person who wears many garments due to the cold. However, two belts, what does he gain from [the second]? It is not normal to gird [a second belt]. It is a load.

Explanation: [It gathers] crumbs of bread [that fall from her mouth]. It is an ornament.

Explanation: Earrings are permitted, like Rashi explained.

Note: Rashi says that it is a burden for her to remove them, for she must untie the knots [in her hair covering], which covers also her ears. However, Tosfos concludes that we are concerned lest she remove strings! Bi'ur Halachah (303:20) answers that Tosfos' text of Rashi said that earrings are tight on her ears, and it is a burden to remove them.

Implied question: It says below (65a) that girls go out with strings in their ears, and the Gemara says that all colored [strings] are forbidden, lest she take it off, since they are ornaments!

Answer: There it is easier to remove [colored strings] than [to remove] earrings.

Explanation: He relies on the Seifa, which explicitly teaches that she is Chayeves Chatas.

Assertion (Ri): In the Reisha [R. Nechemyah] is Metaher. He does not mean to say that we follow even the stamp (and it receives Tamei if the band or stamp is metal), rather, [we follow] specifically the stamp, which is primary.

Support: The Tosefta in Kelim connotes like this. It teaches that a metal ring with a balsam stamp, R. Nechemyah is Metaher, for R. Nechemyah says that [the law of] a ring follows the stamp.