Babylonian Talmud: Tractate Shabbath

Folio 58a

bridal crowns.¹

But Samuel maintained: We learnt of a slave's neck-chain. Now, did Samuel say thus? Surely Samuel said: A slave may go out with a seal round his neck,²  but not with a seal on his garments? There is no difficulty: in the one case [the reference is] where his master set it upon him; in the other where he set it upon himself.³  How have you explained this latter [dictum] of Samuel? that his master set it upon him! Then why [may he] not [go out] with the seal on his garment? — Lest it break off, and he be afraid and fold it [the garment] and put it over his shoulder.⁴  This is as R. Isaac b. Joseph, who said in R. Johanan's name: If one goes out on the Sabbath with a folded garment slung over his shoulder, he incurs a sin-offering. And [this is] as Samuel said to R. Hinena b. Shila: No scholar of the house of the Resh Galutha⁵  may go out with a cloak bearing a seal, except you, because the house of the Resh Galutha is not particular about you.⁶

It was stated above: 'Samuel said: A slave may go out with a seal around his neck, but not with the seal on his garments.' It was taught likewise: A slave may go out with a seal around his neck, but not with the seal on his garments. But the following contradicts this: A slave may not go out with the seal around his neck, nor with the seal on his garments; and neither are susceptible to defilement.⁷  [He may] not [go out] with the bell around his neck, but he may go out with the bell on his garments, and both are susceptible to defilement.⁸  An animal may not go out with a seal around its neck nor with a seal on its covering, nor with the bell on its covering nor with the bell around its neck,⁹  and none of these are susceptible to defilement.¹⁰  Shall we say that in the one case his master had set it upon him, while in the other he had set it upon himself?¹¹  — No. In both cases his master had set it upon him, but one refers to a metal [seal] while the other refers to a clay [seal].¹²  And [this is] as R. Nahman said in Rabbah b. Abbuha's name: That about which the master is particular,¹³  one [a slave] may not go out with it; that about which the master is not particular, one may go out with it. Reason too supports this, since it is stated: 'none of these are susceptible to defilement'. Now, if you say [that the reference is to] metal [seals], it is well; [hence] only these are not susceptible to defilement, but their utensils¹⁴  are. But if you say that we learnt of clay [seals], [it might be asked] are only these not susceptible to defilement, whereas their utensils¹⁵  are? Surely it was taught: Utensils of stone, dung, or earth do not contract uncleanness either by Biblical or by Rabbinical law.¹⁶  Hence it follows that the reference is to metal [seals]. This proves it.

The Master said: '[He may] not [go out] with the bell around his neck, but he may go out with the bell on his garment.' Why not with the bell around his neck; [presumably] 'lest it snap off and he come to carry it: then also in the case of the bell on his garment let us fear that it may snap off and he come to carry it? — The reference here is to one that was woven [sewn] into it. And [this is] in agreement with R. Huna the son of R. Joshua, who said: Concerning whatever is woven they enacted no prohibition.¹⁷

The Master said: 'An animal may not go out with a seal around its neck, with a seal on its covering, nor with a bell around its neck nor with a bell on its coat, and none of these are susceptible to defilement.' Now, does not an animal's bell contract uncleanness? But the following contradicts it: An animal's bell is unclean,¹⁸

1. The wearing of bridal crowns was forbidden as a sign of mourning for the destruction of the Temple; v. Sot. 49a.
2. This is the slave's neck-chain.
3. In the former case he fears to remove it; hence he may wear it. But he is not afraid to remove it in the latter case, and possibly will.
4. He may fold the garment to hide the absence of the signet, fearing that his master may accuse him of having purposely removed it in order to pass as a free man.
5. V. p. 217. n. 7.
6. From this it appears that some scholars wore a badge to indicate that they belonged to the retinue of the exilarch, and were possibly in the position of his clients. He was also evidently very particular about this, so that if the seal fell off one might fold up the garment to hide its absence.
7. Because they are neither ornaments nor useful utensils, but merely badges of shame.
8. These are ornamental.
9. v. supra 54b for the reason.
10. They are not ornamental for the animal.
11. V. p. 270, n. 6.
12. It is shown below that this must refer to a metal seal; hence even if his master set it upon him he may not go out with it, for should it accidentally snap off the slave would be afraid to leave it in the street on account of its value, but would bring it home, which is forbidden. But the value of a clay seal is negligible, whilst if his master set it upon him he is certainly afraid to remove it; hence he may go out with it. Consequently, the prohibition in the Mishnah, which treats of a clay seal, must refer to one that he set upon himself.
13. On account of its value.
14. I.e., the general appointments of an animal, its accoutrement and equipment, which rank as utensils.
15. Of clay.
16. Lit., 'the words of the scribes; v. Kid., Sonc. ed., p. 79, n. 7. These clay seals were not glazed or burnt in a kiln, to be regarded as pottery, which can be defiled. Thus there is no point in teaching that they are free thereof, for no utensil of similar make is susceptible.
17. I.e., if something is woven into a garment, it may be worn on the Sabbath without fear of its falling off. V. supra 57b.
18. I.e., liable to uncleanness.

but a door bell is clean.¹  A door [bell] appointed for an animal['s use] is unclean; an animal [bell] appointed for [fixing] to a door, even if attached to the door and fastened with nails, is unclean; for all utensils enter upon their uncleanness by intention, but are relieved from their uncleanness only by a change-effecting act?²  — There is no difficulty: in the one case [the reference is] where it has a clapper: in the other where it has no clapper.³  What will you: if it is a utensil, then even if it has no clapper [it is unclean]; if it is not a utensil, does the clapper make it one? Yes, as R. Samuel b. Nahmani said in R. Johanan's name, Viz.: How do we know that a metal object which causes sound is unclean?⁴  Because it is said, Everything [dabar] that may abide the fire, ye shall make go through the fire:⁵  even speech [dibbur — i.e., sound] must pass through the fire.⁶

How have you interpreted it? as referring to [a bell] without a clapper! Then consider the middle clause: 'Nor with a bell around his neck, but he may go out with a bell on his garments, and both can contract uncleanness.' But if it has no clapper, can it become defiled? Surely the following contradicts this: If one makes bells for the mortar,⁷  for a cradle,⁸  for the mantles of Scrolls,⁹  or for children's mantles, then if they have a clapper, they are unclean; if they have no clapper,¹⁰  they are clean. If their clappers are removed,¹¹  they still retain their uncleanness.¹²  — That is only in the case of a child, where its purpose is [to produce] sound.¹³  But in the case of an adult, it is an ornament for him even without a clapper.

The Master said: 'If their clappers are removed, they still retain their uncleanness.' What are they fit for?¹⁴  Said Abaye: [They are still utensils,] because an unskilled person can put it back. Raba objected: A bell and its clapper are [counted as] connected.¹⁵  And should you answer, This is its meaning: Even when they are not connected, they are [counted as] connected,¹⁶  — surely it was taught: A shears of separate blades¹⁷  and the cutter of a [carpenter's] plane are [counted as] connected in respect of uncleanness, but not in respect of sprinkling. Now we objected, What will you: if they are [counted as] connected, [they should be so] even in respect of sprinkling too; [if they count] not as connected, they should not [be so] even in respect of defilement either? And Rabbah answered: By Scriptural law, when in use they are [counted as] connected in respect of both defilement and sprinkling; when not in use, they are [counted as] connected in respect of neither defilement nor sprinkling. But they [the Rabbis] enacted a preventive measure in respect of defilement when they are not in use on account of defilement when they are in use; and in respect of sprinkling, when they are in use, on account of when they are not in use!¹⁸  Rather said Raba,

1. The door being part of the house, it is not a utensil, and hence cannot become unclean; the bell, in turn, is part of the door.
2. V. p. 238, n. 9. Here too the bells were left unchanged.
3. If it has a clapper it is susceptible to defilement as a utensil.
4. I.e., it ranks as a utensil.
5. Num. XXXI, 23.
6. In order to cleanse it, which shows that it is liable to defilement. This connects dabar (E.V. thing) with dibbur, speech, i.e., a sound-producing object is a utensil.
7. In which the spices are pounded for use as frankincense in the Temple. Sound was thought to add to the efficacy of crushing; v. Ker. 6b.
8. To amuse the baby or lull it to sleep.
9. Of the Torah. It was customary to adorn these with bells.
10. From the very outset.
11. After the bells were defiled.
12. Because they do not lose the status of utensils and become as broken utensils through the removal of the clapper.
13. Hence without a clapper its purpose is not fulfilled, and it is not a utensil.
14. That they are not regarded as broken utensils.
15. And rank as a single utensil, so that if once becomes unclean the other is too. (This is, of course, when they are together.) Similarly, if one is besprinkled (v. Num. XIX, 18f), the other becomes clean. This shows that when they are separated, each is but a fragment of a utensil, though an unskilled person can replace it, and should therefore be clean.
16. Exactly as the sense in Abaye's explanation.
17. Lit., 'joints'.
18. For notes v. supra 48b and 49a. Now, obviously this must all refer to where the parts are joined, since we compare these utensils when not in use to same when in use. Hence it is implied that when not actually together they do not become defiled even by Rabbinical law, because each is regarded as a fragment, though all unskilled person can join them.