Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

May 3, 2020 | 讟壮 讘讗讬讬专 转砖状驻

Masechet Shabbat is sponsored in memory of Elliot Freilich, Eliyahu Daniel ben Bar Tzion David Halevi z"l by a group of women from Kehilath Jeshurun, Manhattan.

Iyar is sponsored by Aviva and Benny Adler in memory of Yosef ben Zvi HaKohen, Dr. Joseph Kahane z"l and Yehuda Aryeh Leib ben Yisachar Dov Barash, Ari Adler z"l.

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

Shabbat 58

The gemara questions Shmuel’s explanation on the previous page that kavul聽in the mishna (that one cannot go out with on Shabbat) is a kavla of slaves. If so, Shmuel himself says elsewhere that a slave can go out on Shabbat with that. The gemara resolves the contradiction by distinguishing between one that the owner gave him and one that he made for himself. There is a difference between one worn around the neck and one one his clothing – why? In a different braita there is no distinction made between the neck and the clothing. How is this reconciled? The braita quoted mentioned also a bell worn by the slave and distinguished between a bell around his neck and one on his clothing. Why? Another contradictory source is brought regarding whether or not the bell is susceptible to impurity and to resolve it, they distinguish between a bell with a clapper and one without. If the clapper is removed, the braita says it is still susceptible to impurity – why?

 

 

讗讬谉 讘讛 诪砖讜诐 注讟专讜转 讻诇讜转

the rabbinic decree prohibiting adorning brides with bridal crowns to commemorate the destruction of the Temple does not apply to an istema.

讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 讻讘诇讗 讚注讘讚讗 转谞谉 讜诪讬 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讛讻讬 讜讛讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讬讜爪讗 讛注讘讚 讘讞讜转诐 砖讘爪讜讗专讜 讗讘诇 诇讗 讘讞讜转诐 砖讘讻住讜转讜

Earlier, the Gemara cited Rabbi Abbahu鈥檚 opinion that the kavul mentioned in the mishna, which one may not wear into the public domain on Shabbat, is a woolen cap. And Shmuel said: It is the seal of a slave that we learned about in the mishna. The Gemara asks: And did Shmuel actually say this? Didn鈥檛 Shmuel say: A slave may go out on Shabbat with a seal that is around his neck but not with a seal that is on his clothes? Apparently, Shmuel holds that one may go out into the public domain with a slave鈥檚 seal. How, then, could he say that kavul in the mishna, with which one may not go out into the public domain, is referring to the seal of a slave?

诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 讚注讘讚 诇讬讛 专讘讬讛 讛讗 讚注讘讚 讗讬讛讜 诇谞驻砖讬讛

The Gemara answers: This is not difficult. This, where Shmuel said that one may go out with a slave鈥檚 seal on Shabbat, is referring to a case where his master made it for him. The slave will not remove it because he fears his master. Therefore, there is no concern lest he carry it. However, that, where the mishna said that it is prohibited to go out with a kavul, which according to Shmuel is the seal of a slave, is referring to a case where he made it for himself to indicate to all who his master is so that he may enjoy his master鈥檚 protection. In that case, since it is dependent solely upon his discretion, there is concern lest he remove the seal and carry it. Therefore, the Sages prohibited going out with it into the public domain.

讘诪讗讬 讗讜拽讬诪转讗 诇讛讗 讚砖诪讜讗诇 讚注讘讚 诇讬讛 专讘讬讛 讘讞讜转诐 砖讘讻住讜转讜 讗诪讗讬 诇讗

The Gemara asks: In what case did you establish this statement of Shmuel? It is in the case of a seal that his master made for him. If so, why may he not go out with a seal on his clothes? There too, since his master made it for him he will not remove it.

讚讬诇诪讗 诪讬驻住拽 讜诪讬专转转 讜诪讬拽驻诇 诇讬讛 讜诪讞讬转 诇讬讛 讗讻转驻讬讛 讻讚专讘 讬爪讞拽 讘专 讬讜住祝 讚讗诪专 专讘 讬爪讞拽 讘专 讬讜住祝 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛讬讜爪讗 讘讟诇讬转 诪拽驻诇转 讜诪讜谞讞转 诇讜 注诇 讻转驻讬讜 讘砖讘转 讞讬讬讘 讞讟讗转

The Gemara answers: There the concern is that perhaps the seal will be severed, and the slave will fear his master and fold his cloak and place it on his shoulders so that his master will not see that he has no seal on his clothing. That concern is in accordance with the opinion of Rav Yitz岣k bar Yosef; as Rav Yitz岣k bar Yosef said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said: One who goes out into the public domain with a cloak folded and resting on his shoulders on Shabbat is liable to bring a sin-offering. That is not the manner in which one wears a garment; it is the manner in which one carries a burden.

讜讻讬 讛讗 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 砖诪讜讗诇 诇专讘 讞讬谞谞讗 讘专 砖讬诇讗 讻讜诇讛讜 专讘谞谉 讚讘讬 专讬砖 讙诇讜转讗 诇讗 诇讬驻拽讜 讘住专讘诇讬 讞转讬诪讬 诇讘专 诪讬谞讱 讚诇讗 拽驻讚讬 注诇讬讱 讚讘讬 专讬砖 讙诇讜转讗:

And this is like that which Shmuel said to Rav 岣nnana bar Sheila: All of the Sages affiliated with the house of the Exilarch may not go out on Shabbat with sealed cloaks [sarbal], i.e., garments with seals on them, except for you, since the people of the Exilarch鈥檚 house are not particular with regard to you. The Sages affiliated with the Exilarch were officially considered servants of the house and would wear the seal of the house of the Exilarch. Therefore, it was prohibited for them to go out into the public domain on Shabbat with a cloak bearing the Exilarch鈥檚 seal, lest the seal break and, in fear of the Exilarch, they remove the cloak, fold it, place it on their shoulders, and carry it on Shabbat. Only Rav 岣nnana bar Sheila was permitted to go out with this seal on Shabbat since the people of the Exilarch鈥檚 house were not exacting with him. Even if he wore clothing with no seal, they would not consider it an act of insubordination against the Exilarch.

讙讜驻讗 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讬讜爪讗 讛注讘讚 讘讞讜转诐 砖讘爪讜讗专讜 讗讘诇 诇讗 讘讞讜转诐 砖讘讻住讜转讜 转谞讬讗 谞诪讬 讛讻讬 讬讜爪讗 讛注讘讚 讘讞讜转诐 砖讘爪讜讗专讜 讗讘诇 诇讗 讘讞讜转诐 砖讘讻住讜转讜

The Gemara discusses the matter itself: Shmuel said that a slave may go out with a seal that is around his neck but not with a seal that is on his clothes. That opinion was also taught in a baraita: A slave may go out with a seal that is around his neck but not with a seal that is on his clothes.

讜专诪讬谞讛讜 诇讗 讬爪讗 讛注讘讚 讘讞讜转诐 砖讘爪讜讗专讜 讜诇讗 讘讞讜转诐 砖讘讻住讜转讜 讝讛 讜讝讛 讗讬谉 诪拽讘诇讬谉 讟讜诪讗讛 讜诇讗 讘讝讜讙 砖讘爪讜讗专讜 讗讘诇 讬讜爪讗 讛讜讗 讘讝讜讙 砖讘讻住讜转讜 讝讛 讜讝讛 诪拽讘诇讬谉 讟讜诪讗讛

The Gemara raises a contradiction from another baraita: The slave may neither go out with a seal that is around his neck nor with a seal that is on his clothes on Shabbat, and both this and that cannot become ritually impure. And he may not go out with a bell that is hung around his neck; however, he may go out with a bell that is on his clothes, and both this and that can become ritually impure.

讜诇讗 转爪讗 讘讛诪讛 诇讗 讘讞讜转诐 砖讘爪讜讗专讛 讜诇讗 讘讞讜转诐 砖讘讻住讜转讛 讜诇讗 讘讝讜讙 砖讘讻住讜转讛 讜诇讗 讘讝讜讙 砖讘爪讜讗专讛 讝讛 讜讝讛 讗讬谉 诪拽讘诇讬谉 讟讜诪讗讛

And an animal may neither go out with a seal that is around its neck, nor with a seal that is on its clothes, nor with a bell that is on its clothes, nor with a bell that is around its neck since with regard to an animal these are considered burdens not ornaments. Both this, the seal, and that, the bell, cannot become ritually impure because animal ornaments and utensils do not fall into the category of objects that can become ritually impure. Apparently, it is even prohibited for a slave to go out with a seal around his neck, contrary to Shmuel鈥檚 opinion.

诇讬诪讗 讛讗 讚注讘讚 诇讬讛 专讘讬讛 讛讗 讚注讘讚 讗讬讛讜 诇谞驻砖讬讛

The Gemara answers: Say that this baraita, which permits going out, is referring to a case where his master made him the seal. Since he fears removing it, there is no concern that he will come to carry it. That baraita, which prohibits going out, is referring to a case where he made it for himself and there is concern lest he come to remove it and carry it.

诇讗 讗讬讚讬 讜讗讬讚讬 讚注讘讚 诇讬讛 专讘讬讛 讜讻讗谉 讘砖诇 诪转讻转 讜讻讗谉 讘砖诇 讟讬讟 讜讻讚专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讗讘讜讛 讚讘专 讛诪拽驻讬讚 注诇讬讜 专讘讜 讗讬谉 讬讜爪讗讬谉 讘讜 讚讘专 砖讗讬谉 诪拽驻讬讚 注诇讬讜 讬讜爪讗讬谉 讘讜

The Gemara rejects this resolution: No, both this and that are referring to a case where his master made it for him. The difference can be explained differently. And here, where it was prohibited, it is referring to a seal of metal, and here, where it was permitted, it is a seal of clay. And as Rav Na岣an said that Rabba bar Avuh said: With an object about which his master is particular, one may not go out on Shabbat, lest it become detached from the garment, and fear of his master lead the slave to carry it in his hand. With an object about which his master is not particular, one may go out with it.

讛讻讬 谞诪讬 诪住转讘专讗 诪讚拽转谞讬 讝讛 讜讝讛 讗讬谉 诪拽讘诇讬谉 讟讜诪讗讛 讗讬 讗诪专转 讘砖诇诪讗 砖诇 诪转讻转 讛谞讬 讛讜讗 讚诇讗 诪拽讘诇讬 讟讜诪讗讛 讛讗 讻诇讬诐 讚讬讚讛讜 诪拽讘诇讬 讟讜诪讗讛

The Gemara adds: So too, it is reasonable to understand the baraita from the fact that it teaches there: This seal and that seal cannot become ritually impure. Granted, if you say it is referring to a metal seal, it is possible to understand the novel aspect of the baraita as follows: These are the objects that cannot become ritually impure; however, their vessels made of the same material can become ritually impure.

讗诇讗 讗讬 讗诪专转 讘砖诇 讟讬讟 转谞谉 讛谞讬 讛讜讗 讚诇讗 诪拽讘诇讬 讟讜诪讗讛 讛讗 讻诇讬诐 讚讬讚讛讜 诪拽讘诇讬 讟讜诪讗讛

However, if you say that we learned with regard to seals of clay, can it be similarly inferred that these seals are the objects that cannot become ritually impure; however, their vessels made of the same material can become ritually impure?

讜讛讗 转谞讬讗 讻诇讬 讗讘谞讬诐 讻诇讬 讙诇诇讬诐 讜讻诇讬 讗讚诪讛 讗讬谉 诪拽讘诇讬谉 讟讜诪讗讛 诇讗 诪讚讘专讬 转讜专讛 讜诇讗 诪讚讘专讬 住讜驻专讬诐 讗诇讗 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 砖诇 诪转讻转 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛:

Wasn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: Vessels of stone, vessels of dung, and vessels of earth that are not made into earthenware can neither become ritually impure by Torah law nor by rabbinic law? Apparently, even an actual vessel made of clay cannot become ritually impure. Rather, learn from it that this baraita is referring to utensils made of metal. The Gemara concludes: Indeed, conclude from it.

讗诪专 诪专 讜诇讗 讘讝讜讙 砖讘爪讜讗专讜 讗讘诇 讬讜爪讗 讛讜讗 讘讝讜讙 砖讘讻住讜转讜

In that same baraita the Master said that the slave may not go out with a bell that is around his neck, but he may go out with a bell that is on his clothes.

讝讜讙 砖讘爪讜讗专讜 讗诪讗讬 诇讗 讚讬诇诪讗 诪讬驻住讬拽 讜讗转讗 诇讗讬转讜讬讬 讝讜讙 砖讘讻住讜转讜 谞诪讬 诇讬讞讜砖 讚讬诇诪讗 诪讬驻住讬拽 讜讗转讬 诇讗讬转讜讬讬

The Gemara asks: With a bell that is around his neck, why may he not go out? It is due to concern lest it be severed and he come to carry it. If so, with a bell on his clothes too, let us be concerned lest it be severed and he come to carry it.

讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讚诪讬讞讗 讘讬讛 诪讜诪讞讗 讜讻讚专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讬讛讜砖注 讚讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讬讛讜砖注 讻诇 砖讛讜讗 讗专讜讙 诇讗 讙讝专讜:

The Gemara answers: With what are we dealing here? With a case where the bell is woven into the garment, and it is in accordance with the opinion of Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, as Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, said: Anything that is woven into a garment, the Sages did not issue a decree prohibiting going out with it on Shabbat.

讗诪专 诪专 诇讗 转爪讗 讘讛诪讛 诇讗 讘讞讜转诐 砖讘爪讜讗专讛 讜诇讗 讘讞讜转诐 砖讘讻住讜转讛 讜诇讗 讘讝讜讙 砖讘爪讜讗专讛 讜诇讗 讘讝讜讙 砖讘讻住讜转讛 讝讛 讜讝讛 讗讬谉 诪拽讘诇讬谉 讟讜诪讗讛

In the baraita cited earlier, it was taught that the Master said: An animal may neither go out with a seal that is around its neck, nor with a seal that is on its clothes, nor with a bell that is on its clothes, nor with a bell that is around its neck. Both this and that cannot become ritually impure.

讜讝讜讙 讚讘讛诪讛 讗讬谉 诪拽讘诇讬谉 讟讜诪讗讛 讜专诪讬谞讛讜 讝讜讙 砖诇 讘讛诪讛 讟诪讗讛

The Gemara asks: And does a bell of an animal not become ritually impure? The Gemara proceeds to raise a contradiction from that which was taught in another baraita: The bell of an animal can become ritually impure,

讜砖诇 讚诇转 讟讛讜专讛

and the bell of a door is ritually pure. The door itself is not considered a vessel. It is considered part of the house, and therefore its status is like that of the house. The house is attached to the ground, and therefore it cannot become ritually impure. Everything connected to it, including the bell, assumes that status.

砖诇 讚诇转 讜注砖讗讜 诇讘讛诪讛 讟诪讗讛 砖诇 讘讛诪讛 讜注砖讗讜 诇讚诇转 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讞讘专讜 诇讚诇转 讜拽讘注讜 讘诪住诪专讬诐 讟诪讗 砖讻诇 讛讻诇讬诐 讬讜专讚讬谉 诇讬讚讬 讟讜诪讗转谉 讘诪讞砖讘讛 讜讗讬谉 注讜诇讬谉 诪讬讚讬 讟讜诪讗转谉 讗诇讗 讘砖谞讜讬 诪注砖讛

If one took the bell of a door and converted it into a bell for an animal, it can become ritually impure; however, if one took the bell of an animal and converted it into a bell for a door, even though he attached it to the door and even fastened it with nails, it can still become ritually impure because all utensils descend into their state of ritual impurity by means of thought alone, i.e., as a result of a decision to designate them for a specific purpose through which they will become susceptible to ritual impurity, they receive that status immediately. However, they only ascend from their state of ritual impurity by means of an action that effects physical change to the vessel itself. A change in designation alone is ineffective. This baraita states that an animal bell can become ritually impure, contrary to that which was taught in the previous baraita.

诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 讚讗讬转 诇讬讛 注讬谞讘诇 讛讗 讚诇讬转 诇讬讛 注讬谞讘诇

The Gemara answers: This is not difficult. This baraita, where it was taught that the bell can become ritually impure, is referring to a case where it has a clapper [inbal]. That baraita, where it was taught that the bell cannot become ritually impure, is referring to a case where it does not have a clapper.

诪讛 谞驻砖讱 讗讬 诪谞讗 讛讜讗 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 讚诇讬转 诇讬讛 注讬谞讘诇 讗讬 诇讗讜 诪谞讗 讛讜讗 注讬谞讘诇 诪砖讜讬 诇讬讛 诪谞讗

The Gemara asks: Whichever way you look at it, this is difficult. If the bell is a vessel, then even though it has no clapper it should be susceptible to ritual impurity. If it is not a vessel, does a clapper render it a vessel?

讗讬谉 讻讚专讘讬 砖诪讜讗诇 讘专 谞讞诪谞讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜谞转谉 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪讜讗诇 讘专 谞讞诪谞讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜谞转谉 诪谞讬谉 诇诪砖诪讬注 拽讜诇 讘讻诇讬 诪转讻讜转 砖讛讜讗 讟诪讗 砖谞讗诪专 讻诇 讚讘专 讗砖专 讬讘讗 讘讗砖 转注讘讬专讜 讘讗砖 讗驻讬诇讜 讚讘讜专 讬讘讗 讘讗砖

The Gemara answers: Yes, the clapper can determine the bell鈥檚 status with regard to ritual impurity, in accordance with that which Rabbi Shmuel bar Na岣ani said that Rabbi Yonatan said. As Rabbi Shmuel bar Na岣ani said that Rabbi Yonatan said: From where is it derived that a metal vessel that produces sound is considered a vessel and can become ritually impure? As it is stated: 鈥淓very thing that passes through the fire, you shall make it pass through the fire, and it shall be clean; nevertheless, it shall be purified with the water of sprinkling; and all that does not pass through the fire you shall make to go through water鈥 (Numbers 31:23). And the Sages interpret the verse homiletically: Every thing [davar], even speech [dibbur]; in other words, even an object that makes a sound you shall pass through fire to purify it because it is a vessel.

讘诪讗讬 讗讜拽讬诪转讗 讘讚诇讬转 诇讬讛 注讬谞讘诇 讗讬诪讗 诪爪讬注转讗 讜诇讗 讘讝讜讙 砖讘爪讜讗专讜 讗讘诇 讬讜爪讗 讛讜讗 讘讝讜讙 砖讘讻住讜转讜 讜讝讛 讜讝讛 诪拽讘诇讬谉 讟讜诪讗讛 讗讬 讚诇讬转 诇讬讛 注讬谞讘诇 诪讬 诪拽讘诇讬 讟讜诪讗讛

However, the matter can be clarified further. In what case did you establish the baraita; in the case of a bell that does not have a clapper? If so, say the middle clause of that baraita: And he may not go out with a bell that is hung around his neck; however, he may go out with a bell that is on his clothes, and both this and that can become ritually impure. If it is referring to a bell that does not have a clapper, can it become ritually impure?

讜专诪讬谞讛讜 讛注讜砖讛 讝讙讬谉 诇诪讻转砖转 讜诇注专讬住讛 讜诇诪讟驻讞讜转 住驻专讬诐 讜诇诪讟驻讞讜转 转讬谞讜拽讜转 讬砖 诇讛诐 注讬谞讘诇 讟诪讗讬谉 讗讬谉 诇讛诐 注讬谞讘诇 讟讛讜专讬谉 谞讬讟诇讜 注讬谞讘诇讬讛谉 注讚讬谉 讟讜诪讗转谉 注诇讬讛诐

The Gemara raises a contradiction from the Tosefta: One who makes bells for the mortar used to crush spices, and for the cradle, and for mantles of Torah scrolls, and for coverings of small children, if they have a clapper they can become ritually impure, and if they do not have a clapper they are ritually pure and cannot become impure. If after they became ritually impure their clappers were removed, their ritual impurity still remains upon them. Apparently, even with regard to bells used by people, the original existence of a clapper determines whether or not the bell is considered a vessel.

讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讘转讬谞讜拽 讚诇拽诇讗 注讘讬讚讬 诇讬讛 讗讘诇 讙讚讜诇 转讻砖讬讟 讛讜讗 诇讬讛 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚诇讬转 诇讬讛 注讬谞讘诇:

The Gemara answers: This applies only to the bells of a small child, since they are placed on him to produce sound. If the bell does not make a sound, it serves no purpose and, consequently, cannot become ritually impure. However, with regard to an adult, the bell is an ornament for him even though it does not have a clapper.

讗诪专 诪专 谞讬讟诇讜 注讬谞讘诇讬讛谉 注讚讬谉 讟讜诪讗转谉 注诇讬讛谉 诇诪讗讬 讞讝讜 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讛讜讗讬诇 砖讛讛讚讬讜讟 讬讻讜诇 诇讛讞讝讬专讜

It was taught in the Tosefta that the Master said: If their clappers were removed after they became ritually impure, their ritual impurity still remains upon them. The Gemara wonders: For what use are they suited after their clappers are removed? They are essentially broken and should therefore become ritually pure. Abaye said: The reason that their impurity remains is because a common person is able to replace the clapper into the bell. According to Abaye, with regard to any vessel that comes apart, if a common person is capable of reassembling it and it does not require the expertise of a craftsman, it is not considered broken and its ritual impurity is not nullified.

诪转讬讘 专讘讗 讛讝讜讙 讜讛注讬谞讘诇 讞讘讜专

Rava raised an objection to this explanation from that which was taught: The connection between the bell and the clapper, this is a connection. Therefore, if they are detached from each other, the bell should be considered broken.

讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚诇讗 诪讞讘专 讻诪讗谉 讚诪讞讘专 讚诪讬 讜讛转谞讬讗 诪住驻讜专转 砖诇 驻专拽讬诐 讜讗讬讝诪诇 砖诇 专讛讬讟谞讬 讞讘讜专 诇讟讜诪讗讛 讜讗讬谉 讞讘讜专 诇讛讝讗讛

And he adds: And if you say that when employing the term connection, it is saying as follows: Even though it is not connected, it has the legal status as if it were connected. Wasn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: The connection between the different parts of scissors made of different parts that are made to come apart and the connection between the blade of a carpenter鈥檚 plane, which can be removed from its handle, and its handle are considered a connection with regard to contracting ritual impurity? If one part becomes ritually impure, the other parts become ritually impure as well. The baraita continues: However, they are not considered a connection with regard to the sprinkling of the waters of a purification offering. When waters of purification are sprinkled on these implements in order to purify them from ritual impurity imparted by a corpse (see Numbers 19:17鈥19), the water must be sprinkled on each part individually.

讜讗诪专讬谞谉 诪讛 谞驻砖讱 讗讬 讞讘讜专 讛讜讗 讗驻诇讜 诇讛讝讗讛 讜讗讬 诇讗 讞讘讜专 讛讜讗 讗驻讬诇讜 诇讟讜诪讗讛 谞诪讬 诇讗

The Gemara asks: Whichever way you look at it, there is a difficulty: If it is considered a connection, they should be considered connected even with regard to sprinkling; and if they are not considered a connection, they should not be so considered even with regard to ritual impurity.

讜讗诪专 专讘讛 讚讘专 转讜专讛 讘砖注转 诪诇讗讻讛 讞讘讜专 讘讬谉 诇讟讜诪讗讛 讘讬谉 诇讛讝讗讛 砖诇讗 讘砖注转 诪诇讗讻讛 讗讬谞讜 讞讘讜专 诇讗 诇讟讜诪讗讛 讜诇讗 诇讛讝讗讛 讜讙讝专讜 注诇 讟讜诪讗讛 砖诇讗 讘砖注转 诪诇讗讻讛 诪砖讜诐 讟讜诪讗讛 砖讛讬讗 讘砖注转 诪诇讗讻讛 讜注诇 讛讝讗讛 砖讛讬讗 讘砖注转 诪诇讗讻讛 诪砖讜诐 讛讝讗讛 砖诇讗 讘砖注转 诪诇讗讻讛

And Rabba said: By Torah law, when in use, they are considered a connection, both with regard to ritual impurity and with regard to sprinkling. And when not in use, even if the parts are connected, since they are made to come apart and they are commonly dismantled, they are neither considered a connection with regard to ritual impurity nor with regard to sprinkling. And the Sages issued a decree that they should be considered a connection with regard to ritual impurity even when not in use, due to ritual impurity when in use. If one component becomes ritually impure, the other component becomes ritually impure as well. And, as a further stringency, they issued a decree that they should not be considered a connection with regard to sprinkling even when in use, due to sprinkling when not in use. The waters of purification must be sprinkled on each part individually. Nevertheless, this type of connection with regard to ritual impurity is only relevant when the two parts are actually connected. When the parts are separate, even if they can be reattached easily, the vessel is considered broken. This contradicts Abaye鈥檚 explanation.

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讗

Rather, Rava said: It should be explained differently:

Masechet Shabbat is sponsored in memory of Elliot Freilich, Eliyahu Daniel ben Bar Tzion David Halevi z"l by a group of women from Kehilath Jeshurun, Manhattan.

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

Iyar is sponsored by Aviva and Benny Adler in memory of Yosef ben Zvi HaKohen, Dr. Joseph Kahane z"l and Yehuda Aryeh Leib ben Yisachar Dov Barash, Ari Adler z"l.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

Copy of Back to school.._

Back to School

My children spent this past weekend preparing to return to school after nearly two months at home. As they tried...
1

The Power of Jewelry in Chapter Six

The juxtaposition of two sugyot on daf 62: is striking. On one hand, the daf goes into a historical (gory)...
daf yomi One week at a time (1)

Shabbat 55-60 – Daf Yomi: One Week at a Time

We will review Daf 55-60 this week. After finishing the 5th chapter, we will start the 6th chapter and discuss...
talking talmud_square

Shabbat 58: What Makes a Bell a Bell?

What's What: "Atarot Kallot." More on clothing that is decreed against wearing on Shabbat, lest one come to carry. Extending...

Shabbat 58

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Shabbat 58

讗讬谉 讘讛 诪砖讜诐 注讟专讜转 讻诇讜转

the rabbinic decree prohibiting adorning brides with bridal crowns to commemorate the destruction of the Temple does not apply to an istema.

讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 讻讘诇讗 讚注讘讚讗 转谞谉 讜诪讬 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讛讻讬 讜讛讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讬讜爪讗 讛注讘讚 讘讞讜转诐 砖讘爪讜讗专讜 讗讘诇 诇讗 讘讞讜转诐 砖讘讻住讜转讜

Earlier, the Gemara cited Rabbi Abbahu鈥檚 opinion that the kavul mentioned in the mishna, which one may not wear into the public domain on Shabbat, is a woolen cap. And Shmuel said: It is the seal of a slave that we learned about in the mishna. The Gemara asks: And did Shmuel actually say this? Didn鈥檛 Shmuel say: A slave may go out on Shabbat with a seal that is around his neck but not with a seal that is on his clothes? Apparently, Shmuel holds that one may go out into the public domain with a slave鈥檚 seal. How, then, could he say that kavul in the mishna, with which one may not go out into the public domain, is referring to the seal of a slave?

诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 讚注讘讚 诇讬讛 专讘讬讛 讛讗 讚注讘讚 讗讬讛讜 诇谞驻砖讬讛

The Gemara answers: This is not difficult. This, where Shmuel said that one may go out with a slave鈥檚 seal on Shabbat, is referring to a case where his master made it for him. The slave will not remove it because he fears his master. Therefore, there is no concern lest he carry it. However, that, where the mishna said that it is prohibited to go out with a kavul, which according to Shmuel is the seal of a slave, is referring to a case where he made it for himself to indicate to all who his master is so that he may enjoy his master鈥檚 protection. In that case, since it is dependent solely upon his discretion, there is concern lest he remove the seal and carry it. Therefore, the Sages prohibited going out with it into the public domain.

讘诪讗讬 讗讜拽讬诪转讗 诇讛讗 讚砖诪讜讗诇 讚注讘讚 诇讬讛 专讘讬讛 讘讞讜转诐 砖讘讻住讜转讜 讗诪讗讬 诇讗

The Gemara asks: In what case did you establish this statement of Shmuel? It is in the case of a seal that his master made for him. If so, why may he not go out with a seal on his clothes? There too, since his master made it for him he will not remove it.

讚讬诇诪讗 诪讬驻住拽 讜诪讬专转转 讜诪讬拽驻诇 诇讬讛 讜诪讞讬转 诇讬讛 讗讻转驻讬讛 讻讚专讘 讬爪讞拽 讘专 讬讜住祝 讚讗诪专 专讘 讬爪讞拽 讘专 讬讜住祝 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛讬讜爪讗 讘讟诇讬转 诪拽驻诇转 讜诪讜谞讞转 诇讜 注诇 讻转驻讬讜 讘砖讘转 讞讬讬讘 讞讟讗转

The Gemara answers: There the concern is that perhaps the seal will be severed, and the slave will fear his master and fold his cloak and place it on his shoulders so that his master will not see that he has no seal on his clothing. That concern is in accordance with the opinion of Rav Yitz岣k bar Yosef; as Rav Yitz岣k bar Yosef said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said: One who goes out into the public domain with a cloak folded and resting on his shoulders on Shabbat is liable to bring a sin-offering. That is not the manner in which one wears a garment; it is the manner in which one carries a burden.

讜讻讬 讛讗 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 砖诪讜讗诇 诇专讘 讞讬谞谞讗 讘专 砖讬诇讗 讻讜诇讛讜 专讘谞谉 讚讘讬 专讬砖 讙诇讜转讗 诇讗 诇讬驻拽讜 讘住专讘诇讬 讞转讬诪讬 诇讘专 诪讬谞讱 讚诇讗 拽驻讚讬 注诇讬讱 讚讘讬 专讬砖 讙诇讜转讗:

And this is like that which Shmuel said to Rav 岣nnana bar Sheila: All of the Sages affiliated with the house of the Exilarch may not go out on Shabbat with sealed cloaks [sarbal], i.e., garments with seals on them, except for you, since the people of the Exilarch鈥檚 house are not particular with regard to you. The Sages affiliated with the Exilarch were officially considered servants of the house and would wear the seal of the house of the Exilarch. Therefore, it was prohibited for them to go out into the public domain on Shabbat with a cloak bearing the Exilarch鈥檚 seal, lest the seal break and, in fear of the Exilarch, they remove the cloak, fold it, place it on their shoulders, and carry it on Shabbat. Only Rav 岣nnana bar Sheila was permitted to go out with this seal on Shabbat since the people of the Exilarch鈥檚 house were not exacting with him. Even if he wore clothing with no seal, they would not consider it an act of insubordination against the Exilarch.

讙讜驻讗 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讬讜爪讗 讛注讘讚 讘讞讜转诐 砖讘爪讜讗专讜 讗讘诇 诇讗 讘讞讜转诐 砖讘讻住讜转讜 转谞讬讗 谞诪讬 讛讻讬 讬讜爪讗 讛注讘讚 讘讞讜转诐 砖讘爪讜讗专讜 讗讘诇 诇讗 讘讞讜转诐 砖讘讻住讜转讜

The Gemara discusses the matter itself: Shmuel said that a slave may go out with a seal that is around his neck but not with a seal that is on his clothes. That opinion was also taught in a baraita: A slave may go out with a seal that is around his neck but not with a seal that is on his clothes.

讜专诪讬谞讛讜 诇讗 讬爪讗 讛注讘讚 讘讞讜转诐 砖讘爪讜讗专讜 讜诇讗 讘讞讜转诐 砖讘讻住讜转讜 讝讛 讜讝讛 讗讬谉 诪拽讘诇讬谉 讟讜诪讗讛 讜诇讗 讘讝讜讙 砖讘爪讜讗专讜 讗讘诇 讬讜爪讗 讛讜讗 讘讝讜讙 砖讘讻住讜转讜 讝讛 讜讝讛 诪拽讘诇讬谉 讟讜诪讗讛

The Gemara raises a contradiction from another baraita: The slave may neither go out with a seal that is around his neck nor with a seal that is on his clothes on Shabbat, and both this and that cannot become ritually impure. And he may not go out with a bell that is hung around his neck; however, he may go out with a bell that is on his clothes, and both this and that can become ritually impure.

讜诇讗 转爪讗 讘讛诪讛 诇讗 讘讞讜转诐 砖讘爪讜讗专讛 讜诇讗 讘讞讜转诐 砖讘讻住讜转讛 讜诇讗 讘讝讜讙 砖讘讻住讜转讛 讜诇讗 讘讝讜讙 砖讘爪讜讗专讛 讝讛 讜讝讛 讗讬谉 诪拽讘诇讬谉 讟讜诪讗讛

And an animal may neither go out with a seal that is around its neck, nor with a seal that is on its clothes, nor with a bell that is on its clothes, nor with a bell that is around its neck since with regard to an animal these are considered burdens not ornaments. Both this, the seal, and that, the bell, cannot become ritually impure because animal ornaments and utensils do not fall into the category of objects that can become ritually impure. Apparently, it is even prohibited for a slave to go out with a seal around his neck, contrary to Shmuel鈥檚 opinion.

诇讬诪讗 讛讗 讚注讘讚 诇讬讛 专讘讬讛 讛讗 讚注讘讚 讗讬讛讜 诇谞驻砖讬讛

The Gemara answers: Say that this baraita, which permits going out, is referring to a case where his master made him the seal. Since he fears removing it, there is no concern that he will come to carry it. That baraita, which prohibits going out, is referring to a case where he made it for himself and there is concern lest he come to remove it and carry it.

诇讗 讗讬讚讬 讜讗讬讚讬 讚注讘讚 诇讬讛 专讘讬讛 讜讻讗谉 讘砖诇 诪转讻转 讜讻讗谉 讘砖诇 讟讬讟 讜讻讚专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讗讘讜讛 讚讘专 讛诪拽驻讬讚 注诇讬讜 专讘讜 讗讬谉 讬讜爪讗讬谉 讘讜 讚讘专 砖讗讬谉 诪拽驻讬讚 注诇讬讜 讬讜爪讗讬谉 讘讜

The Gemara rejects this resolution: No, both this and that are referring to a case where his master made it for him. The difference can be explained differently. And here, where it was prohibited, it is referring to a seal of metal, and here, where it was permitted, it is a seal of clay. And as Rav Na岣an said that Rabba bar Avuh said: With an object about which his master is particular, one may not go out on Shabbat, lest it become detached from the garment, and fear of his master lead the slave to carry it in his hand. With an object about which his master is not particular, one may go out with it.

讛讻讬 谞诪讬 诪住转讘专讗 诪讚拽转谞讬 讝讛 讜讝讛 讗讬谉 诪拽讘诇讬谉 讟讜诪讗讛 讗讬 讗诪专转 讘砖诇诪讗 砖诇 诪转讻转 讛谞讬 讛讜讗 讚诇讗 诪拽讘诇讬 讟讜诪讗讛 讛讗 讻诇讬诐 讚讬讚讛讜 诪拽讘诇讬 讟讜诪讗讛

The Gemara adds: So too, it is reasonable to understand the baraita from the fact that it teaches there: This seal and that seal cannot become ritually impure. Granted, if you say it is referring to a metal seal, it is possible to understand the novel aspect of the baraita as follows: These are the objects that cannot become ritually impure; however, their vessels made of the same material can become ritually impure.

讗诇讗 讗讬 讗诪专转 讘砖诇 讟讬讟 转谞谉 讛谞讬 讛讜讗 讚诇讗 诪拽讘诇讬 讟讜诪讗讛 讛讗 讻诇讬诐 讚讬讚讛讜 诪拽讘诇讬 讟讜诪讗讛

However, if you say that we learned with regard to seals of clay, can it be similarly inferred that these seals are the objects that cannot become ritually impure; however, their vessels made of the same material can become ritually impure?

讜讛讗 转谞讬讗 讻诇讬 讗讘谞讬诐 讻诇讬 讙诇诇讬诐 讜讻诇讬 讗讚诪讛 讗讬谉 诪拽讘诇讬谉 讟讜诪讗讛 诇讗 诪讚讘专讬 转讜专讛 讜诇讗 诪讚讘专讬 住讜驻专讬诐 讗诇讗 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 砖诇 诪转讻转 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛:

Wasn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: Vessels of stone, vessels of dung, and vessels of earth that are not made into earthenware can neither become ritually impure by Torah law nor by rabbinic law? Apparently, even an actual vessel made of clay cannot become ritually impure. Rather, learn from it that this baraita is referring to utensils made of metal. The Gemara concludes: Indeed, conclude from it.

讗诪专 诪专 讜诇讗 讘讝讜讙 砖讘爪讜讗专讜 讗讘诇 讬讜爪讗 讛讜讗 讘讝讜讙 砖讘讻住讜转讜

In that same baraita the Master said that the slave may not go out with a bell that is around his neck, but he may go out with a bell that is on his clothes.

讝讜讙 砖讘爪讜讗专讜 讗诪讗讬 诇讗 讚讬诇诪讗 诪讬驻住讬拽 讜讗转讗 诇讗讬转讜讬讬 讝讜讙 砖讘讻住讜转讜 谞诪讬 诇讬讞讜砖 讚讬诇诪讗 诪讬驻住讬拽 讜讗转讬 诇讗讬转讜讬讬

The Gemara asks: With a bell that is around his neck, why may he not go out? It is due to concern lest it be severed and he come to carry it. If so, with a bell on his clothes too, let us be concerned lest it be severed and he come to carry it.

讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讚诪讬讞讗 讘讬讛 诪讜诪讞讗 讜讻讚专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讬讛讜砖注 讚讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讬讛讜砖注 讻诇 砖讛讜讗 讗专讜讙 诇讗 讙讝专讜:

The Gemara answers: With what are we dealing here? With a case where the bell is woven into the garment, and it is in accordance with the opinion of Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, as Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, said: Anything that is woven into a garment, the Sages did not issue a decree prohibiting going out with it on Shabbat.

讗诪专 诪专 诇讗 转爪讗 讘讛诪讛 诇讗 讘讞讜转诐 砖讘爪讜讗专讛 讜诇讗 讘讞讜转诐 砖讘讻住讜转讛 讜诇讗 讘讝讜讙 砖讘爪讜讗专讛 讜诇讗 讘讝讜讙 砖讘讻住讜转讛 讝讛 讜讝讛 讗讬谉 诪拽讘诇讬谉 讟讜诪讗讛

In the baraita cited earlier, it was taught that the Master said: An animal may neither go out with a seal that is around its neck, nor with a seal that is on its clothes, nor with a bell that is on its clothes, nor with a bell that is around its neck. Both this and that cannot become ritually impure.

讜讝讜讙 讚讘讛诪讛 讗讬谉 诪拽讘诇讬谉 讟讜诪讗讛 讜专诪讬谞讛讜 讝讜讙 砖诇 讘讛诪讛 讟诪讗讛

The Gemara asks: And does a bell of an animal not become ritually impure? The Gemara proceeds to raise a contradiction from that which was taught in another baraita: The bell of an animal can become ritually impure,

讜砖诇 讚诇转 讟讛讜专讛

and the bell of a door is ritually pure. The door itself is not considered a vessel. It is considered part of the house, and therefore its status is like that of the house. The house is attached to the ground, and therefore it cannot become ritually impure. Everything connected to it, including the bell, assumes that status.

砖诇 讚诇转 讜注砖讗讜 诇讘讛诪讛 讟诪讗讛 砖诇 讘讛诪讛 讜注砖讗讜 诇讚诇转 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讞讘专讜 诇讚诇转 讜拽讘注讜 讘诪住诪专讬诐 讟诪讗 砖讻诇 讛讻诇讬诐 讬讜专讚讬谉 诇讬讚讬 讟讜诪讗转谉 讘诪讞砖讘讛 讜讗讬谉 注讜诇讬谉 诪讬讚讬 讟讜诪讗转谉 讗诇讗 讘砖谞讜讬 诪注砖讛

If one took the bell of a door and converted it into a bell for an animal, it can become ritually impure; however, if one took the bell of an animal and converted it into a bell for a door, even though he attached it to the door and even fastened it with nails, it can still become ritually impure because all utensils descend into their state of ritual impurity by means of thought alone, i.e., as a result of a decision to designate them for a specific purpose through which they will become susceptible to ritual impurity, they receive that status immediately. However, they only ascend from their state of ritual impurity by means of an action that effects physical change to the vessel itself. A change in designation alone is ineffective. This baraita states that an animal bell can become ritually impure, contrary to that which was taught in the previous baraita.

诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 讚讗讬转 诇讬讛 注讬谞讘诇 讛讗 讚诇讬转 诇讬讛 注讬谞讘诇

The Gemara answers: This is not difficult. This baraita, where it was taught that the bell can become ritually impure, is referring to a case where it has a clapper [inbal]. That baraita, where it was taught that the bell cannot become ritually impure, is referring to a case where it does not have a clapper.

诪讛 谞驻砖讱 讗讬 诪谞讗 讛讜讗 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 讚诇讬转 诇讬讛 注讬谞讘诇 讗讬 诇讗讜 诪谞讗 讛讜讗 注讬谞讘诇 诪砖讜讬 诇讬讛 诪谞讗

The Gemara asks: Whichever way you look at it, this is difficult. If the bell is a vessel, then even though it has no clapper it should be susceptible to ritual impurity. If it is not a vessel, does a clapper render it a vessel?

讗讬谉 讻讚专讘讬 砖诪讜讗诇 讘专 谞讞诪谞讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜谞转谉 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪讜讗诇 讘专 谞讞诪谞讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜谞转谉 诪谞讬谉 诇诪砖诪讬注 拽讜诇 讘讻诇讬 诪转讻讜转 砖讛讜讗 讟诪讗 砖谞讗诪专 讻诇 讚讘专 讗砖专 讬讘讗 讘讗砖 转注讘讬专讜 讘讗砖 讗驻讬诇讜 讚讘讜专 讬讘讗 讘讗砖

The Gemara answers: Yes, the clapper can determine the bell鈥檚 status with regard to ritual impurity, in accordance with that which Rabbi Shmuel bar Na岣ani said that Rabbi Yonatan said. As Rabbi Shmuel bar Na岣ani said that Rabbi Yonatan said: From where is it derived that a metal vessel that produces sound is considered a vessel and can become ritually impure? As it is stated: 鈥淓very thing that passes through the fire, you shall make it pass through the fire, and it shall be clean; nevertheless, it shall be purified with the water of sprinkling; and all that does not pass through the fire you shall make to go through water鈥 (Numbers 31:23). And the Sages interpret the verse homiletically: Every thing [davar], even speech [dibbur]; in other words, even an object that makes a sound you shall pass through fire to purify it because it is a vessel.

讘诪讗讬 讗讜拽讬诪转讗 讘讚诇讬转 诇讬讛 注讬谞讘诇 讗讬诪讗 诪爪讬注转讗 讜诇讗 讘讝讜讙 砖讘爪讜讗专讜 讗讘诇 讬讜爪讗 讛讜讗 讘讝讜讙 砖讘讻住讜转讜 讜讝讛 讜讝讛 诪拽讘诇讬谉 讟讜诪讗讛 讗讬 讚诇讬转 诇讬讛 注讬谞讘诇 诪讬 诪拽讘诇讬 讟讜诪讗讛

However, the matter can be clarified further. In what case did you establish the baraita; in the case of a bell that does not have a clapper? If so, say the middle clause of that baraita: And he may not go out with a bell that is hung around his neck; however, he may go out with a bell that is on his clothes, and both this and that can become ritually impure. If it is referring to a bell that does not have a clapper, can it become ritually impure?

讜专诪讬谞讛讜 讛注讜砖讛 讝讙讬谉 诇诪讻转砖转 讜诇注专讬住讛 讜诇诪讟驻讞讜转 住驻专讬诐 讜诇诪讟驻讞讜转 转讬谞讜拽讜转 讬砖 诇讛诐 注讬谞讘诇 讟诪讗讬谉 讗讬谉 诇讛诐 注讬谞讘诇 讟讛讜专讬谉 谞讬讟诇讜 注讬谞讘诇讬讛谉 注讚讬谉 讟讜诪讗转谉 注诇讬讛诐

The Gemara raises a contradiction from the Tosefta: One who makes bells for the mortar used to crush spices, and for the cradle, and for mantles of Torah scrolls, and for coverings of small children, if they have a clapper they can become ritually impure, and if they do not have a clapper they are ritually pure and cannot become impure. If after they became ritually impure their clappers were removed, their ritual impurity still remains upon them. Apparently, even with regard to bells used by people, the original existence of a clapper determines whether or not the bell is considered a vessel.

讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讘转讬谞讜拽 讚诇拽诇讗 注讘讬讚讬 诇讬讛 讗讘诇 讙讚讜诇 转讻砖讬讟 讛讜讗 诇讬讛 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚诇讬转 诇讬讛 注讬谞讘诇:

The Gemara answers: This applies only to the bells of a small child, since they are placed on him to produce sound. If the bell does not make a sound, it serves no purpose and, consequently, cannot become ritually impure. However, with regard to an adult, the bell is an ornament for him even though it does not have a clapper.

讗诪专 诪专 谞讬讟诇讜 注讬谞讘诇讬讛谉 注讚讬谉 讟讜诪讗转谉 注诇讬讛谉 诇诪讗讬 讞讝讜 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讛讜讗讬诇 砖讛讛讚讬讜讟 讬讻讜诇 诇讛讞讝讬专讜

It was taught in the Tosefta that the Master said: If their clappers were removed after they became ritually impure, their ritual impurity still remains upon them. The Gemara wonders: For what use are they suited after their clappers are removed? They are essentially broken and should therefore become ritually pure. Abaye said: The reason that their impurity remains is because a common person is able to replace the clapper into the bell. According to Abaye, with regard to any vessel that comes apart, if a common person is capable of reassembling it and it does not require the expertise of a craftsman, it is not considered broken and its ritual impurity is not nullified.

诪转讬讘 专讘讗 讛讝讜讙 讜讛注讬谞讘诇 讞讘讜专

Rava raised an objection to this explanation from that which was taught: The connection between the bell and the clapper, this is a connection. Therefore, if they are detached from each other, the bell should be considered broken.

讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚诇讗 诪讞讘专 讻诪讗谉 讚诪讞讘专 讚诪讬 讜讛转谞讬讗 诪住驻讜专转 砖诇 驻专拽讬诐 讜讗讬讝诪诇 砖诇 专讛讬讟谞讬 讞讘讜专 诇讟讜诪讗讛 讜讗讬谉 讞讘讜专 诇讛讝讗讛

And he adds: And if you say that when employing the term connection, it is saying as follows: Even though it is not connected, it has the legal status as if it were connected. Wasn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: The connection between the different parts of scissors made of different parts that are made to come apart and the connection between the blade of a carpenter鈥檚 plane, which can be removed from its handle, and its handle are considered a connection with regard to contracting ritual impurity? If one part becomes ritually impure, the other parts become ritually impure as well. The baraita continues: However, they are not considered a connection with regard to the sprinkling of the waters of a purification offering. When waters of purification are sprinkled on these implements in order to purify them from ritual impurity imparted by a corpse (see Numbers 19:17鈥19), the water must be sprinkled on each part individually.

讜讗诪专讬谞谉 诪讛 谞驻砖讱 讗讬 讞讘讜专 讛讜讗 讗驻诇讜 诇讛讝讗讛 讜讗讬 诇讗 讞讘讜专 讛讜讗 讗驻讬诇讜 诇讟讜诪讗讛 谞诪讬 诇讗

The Gemara asks: Whichever way you look at it, there is a difficulty: If it is considered a connection, they should be considered connected even with regard to sprinkling; and if they are not considered a connection, they should not be so considered even with regard to ritual impurity.

讜讗诪专 专讘讛 讚讘专 转讜专讛 讘砖注转 诪诇讗讻讛 讞讘讜专 讘讬谉 诇讟讜诪讗讛 讘讬谉 诇讛讝讗讛 砖诇讗 讘砖注转 诪诇讗讻讛 讗讬谞讜 讞讘讜专 诇讗 诇讟讜诪讗讛 讜诇讗 诇讛讝讗讛 讜讙讝专讜 注诇 讟讜诪讗讛 砖诇讗 讘砖注转 诪诇讗讻讛 诪砖讜诐 讟讜诪讗讛 砖讛讬讗 讘砖注转 诪诇讗讻讛 讜注诇 讛讝讗讛 砖讛讬讗 讘砖注转 诪诇讗讻讛 诪砖讜诐 讛讝讗讛 砖诇讗 讘砖注转 诪诇讗讻讛

And Rabba said: By Torah law, when in use, they are considered a connection, both with regard to ritual impurity and with regard to sprinkling. And when not in use, even if the parts are connected, since they are made to come apart and they are commonly dismantled, they are neither considered a connection with regard to ritual impurity nor with regard to sprinkling. And the Sages issued a decree that they should be considered a connection with regard to ritual impurity even when not in use, due to ritual impurity when in use. If one component becomes ritually impure, the other component becomes ritually impure as well. And, as a further stringency, they issued a decree that they should not be considered a connection with regard to sprinkling even when in use, due to sprinkling when not in use. The waters of purification must be sprinkled on each part individually. Nevertheless, this type of connection with regard to ritual impurity is only relevant when the two parts are actually connected. When the parts are separate, even if they can be reattached easily, the vessel is considered broken. This contradicts Abaye鈥檚 explanation.

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讗

Rather, Rava said: It should be explained differently:

Scroll To Top