וְשֶׁל דֶּלֶת – טְהוֹרָה.

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.

שֶׁל דֶּלֶת וַעֲשָׂאוֹ לַבְּהֵמָה – טְמֵאָה, שֶׁל בְּהֵמָה וַעֲשָׂאוֹ לַדֶּלֶת, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁחִבְּרוֹ לַדֶּלֶת וּקְבָעוֹ בְּמַסְמְרִים – טָמֵא, שֶׁכָּל הַכֵּלִים יוֹרְדִין לִידֵי טוּמְאָתָן בְּמַחֲשָׁבָה, וְאֵין עוֹלִין מִידֵי טוּמְאָתָן אֶלָּא בְּשִׁנּוּי מַעֲשֶׂה!

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 .

לָא קַשְׁיָא, הָא – דְּאִית לֵיהּ עִינְבָּל, הָא – דְּלֵית לֵיהּ עִינְבָּל.

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.

מַה נַּפְשָׁךְ: אִי מָנָא הוּא – אַף עַל פִּי דְּלֵית לֵיהּ עִינְבָּל, אִי לָאו מָנָא הוּא – עִינְבָּל מְשַׁוֵּי לֵיהּ מָנָא?

The Gemara asks: Whichever way you look at it, this is difficult. If the bell is a vessel, 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?

אִין, כִּדְרַבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר נַחֲמָנִי אֲמַר רַבִּי יוֹנָתָן; דְּאָמַר רַבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר נַחֲמָנִי אֲמַר רַבִּי יוֹנָתָן: מִנַּיִן לְמַשְׁמִיעַ קוֹל בִּכְלִי מַתָּכוֹת שֶׁהוּא טָמֵא – שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: “כָּל דָּבָר אֲשֶׁר יָבֹא בָאֵשׁ תַּעֲבִירוּ בָאֵשׁ״ אֲפִילּוּ דִּבּוּר יָבֹא בָּאֵשׁ.

The Gemara answers: Yes, the clapper can determine the bell’s status with regard to ritual impurity, in accordance with that which Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani said that Rabbi Yonatan said. As Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani 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: “Every 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” (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.

בְּמַאי אוּקִימְתָּא – בִּדְלֵית לֵיהּ עִינְבָּל, אֵימָא מְצִיעֲתָא: “וְלֹא בְּזוּג שֶׁבְּצַוָּארוֹ אֲבָל יוֹצֵא הוּא בְּזוּג שֶׁבִּכְסוּתוֹ וְזֶה וָזֶה מְקַבְּלִין טוּמְאָה״, אִי דְּלֵית לֵיהּ עִינְבָּל – מִי מְקַבְּלִי טוּמְאָה?

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?

וּרְמִינְהוּ: הָעוֹשֶׂה זַגִּין לְמַכְתֶּשֶׁת וְלַעֲרִיסָה וּלְמִטְפְּחוֹת סְפָרִים וּלְמִטְפְּחוֹת תִּינוֹקוֹת, יֵשׁ לָהֶם עִינְבָּל – טְמֵאִין, אֵין לָהֶם עִינְבָּל – טְהוֹרִין, נִיטְּלוּ עִינְבְּלֵיהֶן – עֲדַיִן טוּמְאָתָן עֲלֵיהֶם!

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.

הָנֵי מִילֵּי – בְּתִינוֹק דִּלְקָלָא עֲבִידִי לֵיהּ, אֲבָל גָּדוֹל תַּכְשִׁיט הוּא לֵיהּ, אַף עַל גַּב דְּלֵית לֵיהּ עִינְבָּל.

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.

אָמַר מָר: נִיטְּלוּ עִינְבְּלֵיהֶן עֲדַיִן טוּמְאָתָן עֲלֵיהֶן. לְמַאי חֲזוּ? אָמַר אַבַּיֵי: הוֹאִיל שֶׁהַהֶדְיוֹט יָכוֹל לְהַחֲזִירוֹ.

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.

מְתִיב רָבָא: הַזּוּג וְהָעִינְבָּל חִבּוּר!

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.

וְכִי תֵּימָא: הָכִי קָאָמַר, אַף עַל גַּב דְּלָא מְחַבֵּר – כְּמַאן דִּמְחַבֵּר דָּמֵי, וְהָתַנְיָא: מִסְפּוֹרֶת שֶׁל פְּרָקִים וְאִיזְמֵל שֶׁל רְהִיטְנִי – חִבּוּר לְטוּמְאָה, וְאֵין חִבּוּר לְהַזָּאָה.

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’t 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’s 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 19:17–19), the water must be sprinkled on each part individually.

וְאָמְרִינַן: מַה נַּפְשָׁךְ, אִי חִבּוּר הוּא – אֲפִלּוּ לְהַזָּאָה, וְאִי לֹא חִבּוּר הוּא – אֲפִילּוּ לְטוּמְאָה נַמִי לֹא!

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.

וְאָמַר רַבָּה: דְּבַר תּוֹרָה, בִּשְׁעַת מְלָאכָה – חִבּוּר בֵּין לְטוּמְאָה בֵּין לְהַזָּאָה, שֶׁלֹּא בִּשְׁעַת מְלָאכָה – אֵינוֹ חִבּוּר לֹא לְטוּמְאָה וְלֹא לְהַזָּאָה. וְגָזְרוּ עַל טוּמְאָה שֶׁלֹּא בִּשְׁעַת מְלָאכָה, מִשּׁוּם טוּמְאָה שֶׁהִיא בִּשְׁעַת מְלָאכָה. וְעַל הַזָּאָה שֶׁהִיא בִּשְׁעַת מְלָאכָה, מִשּׁוּם הַזָּאָה שֶׁלֹּא בִּשְׁעַת מְלָאכָה!

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’s explanation.

אֶלָּא אָמַר רָבָא:

Rather, Rava said: It should be explained differently: