Source: http://halakhah.com/shabbath/shabbath_58.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-26 02:19:45+00:00

Document:
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 wearing of bridal crowns was forbidden as a sign of mourning for the destruction of the Temple; v. Sot. 49a.
This is the slave's neck-chain.
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.
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.
V. p. 217. n. 7.
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.
Because they are neither ornaments nor useful utensils, but merely badges of shame.
v. supra 54b for the reason.
They are not ornamental for the animal.
V. p. 270, n. 6.
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.
On account of its value.
I.e., the general appointments of an animal, its accoutrement and equipment, which rank as utensils.
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.
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.
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 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.
V. p. 238, n. 9. Here too the bells were left unchanged.
If it has a clapper it is susceptible to defilement as a utensil.
I.e., it ranks as a utensil.
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.
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.
To amuse the baby or lull it to sleep.
Of the Torah. It was customary to adorn these with bells.
After the bells were defiled.
Because they do not lose the status of utensils and become as broken utensils through the removal of the clapper.
Hence without a clapper its purpose is not fulfilled, and it is not a utensil.
That they are not regarded as broken utensils.
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.
Exactly as the sense in Abaye's explanation.
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.

References: v. 

V. 

v. 

V. 
 v. 
 V. 

V. 
 v. 
 v.