Implied question: Why didn't he establish our Mishnah to discuss a signet in his garment?

Answer: He prefers to establish it when he made it for himself, and our Mishnah discusses all signets (both on his neck and on his garment).

Question (Rashba): Why does our Mishnah permit in the Chatzer when he made it for himself? His master is not adamant! (Perhaps he will remove it and carry it.)

Answer: There is some adamancy, but not as much as when his master made it for him.

Explanation: However, if we discuss when he made it for himself, it is fine that on his neck there is no concern lest he overtly break it so people who see will not know that he is a slave;

However, on his garment there is concern lest he fold his Talis to cover the Chosam, and he will not know that there is a Chiyuv Chatas for this;

However, when his master made it, due to fear of his master he fears to fold.

Support: Also now the Gemara knew Rav Yitzchak's teaching, but it did not know that there is concern lest it break;

After it answers, it brings Rav Yitzchak's teaching and comes to explain that there is a Chiyuv Chatas through folding.

Explanation: He prefers that it is folded, than that his master see that it totally broke, and he will think that he intentionally broke it to rebel against him.

Explanation: It looks like he goes to the market, like Rashi explained.

Suggestion: Perhaps it is lest it break, and he will come to carry it!

Rejection: Above (54b), it explains that a bell is forbidden because it looks like he goes to the market. It did not say lest it break, similar to a signet! (Since they were taught together, presumably, there is one reason for both of them.)

Implied question: A Mishnah below (66b) teaches that princes go out with bells. The same applies to everyone, just Chachamim discussed a common case!

Answer #1 (Ri): It discusses expensive bells with which princes go out, e.g. of silver and gold. There is no concern lest they break, for presumably, they are fastened well with silver chains;

Here it discusses a regular bell.

Answer #2: According to how the Gemara [there] establishes it to discuss when it is woven, this is fine.

Question: Just like a bell discusses when it is woven, also we discuss a signet woven into his garment! If so, why is it forbidden?

Answer: A bell is permitted because it is normal to sew it into a garment. There is no garment not proper for decoration and an ornament like this;

Chachamim did not obligate him to detach it from all garments and debase the garment;

However, a signet is not normal to make for all garments. It is not beauty for the garment. Therefore Chachamim decreed even if it is woven into his garment that he must detach it, due to when it is not woven.

Question: Rather than distinguishing between a bell on his neck and a bell on his garment, he should distinguish within the case of a bell on his garment, between when it is woven and when it is not woven!

Answer: He prefers to teach that a bell on his neck is forbidden even in a piece of a garment around his neck, and it can fall only through cutting.

Implied question: Rav Huna's teaching was brought above (57a) regarding a Chatzitzah!

Answer: Since he said "anything woven" this connotes that he means both regarding a Chatzitzah, and lest it break, we are not concerned regarding something woven.

Implied question: It says in Menachos (24a) that if a sheet was made into a curtain, it is Tahor from Midras!

Answer: It is not Tahor solely due to fixing a place. Rather, we discuss when he made some change through an action.

Implied question: It says in Sanhedrin (48b) that if one gave a cap to be used for a [cover for] a Sefer, it is Tahor from Midras, even though he did not make any change through an action!

Answer: Since it become Asur b'Hana'ah through this (designation for a Sefer), it is considered like a change through an action.

Explanation: He considers this a Kli that serves man, for he needs it to make a noise, for through the bell, he knows where his animal stands, and through this he finds it;

It is like a metal staff for [hitting] an animal. It [receives] Tum'ah, for man uses it to control it.

Support: It connotes like this below regarding Biris (a leg bracelet) is Tahor, that a metal Kli that makes noise is Tamei only if he needs the noise.

Implied question: Why does it distinguish between when it has a clapper and when it has no clapper, and not within the case of when it has a clapper, between when he needs the noise and when he does not need it?

Answer (Ri): It is not common to make a clapper unless he needs it for noise.

Implied question: This verse is not written regarding Tum'ah, rather, regarding Kashering!

Answer: Presumably, there (Kashering) noise does not make a difference. If [the verse] it is not needed for Kashering, we apply it to Tum'ah.

Explanation #1 (Rashi): Since it calls them connected, this shows that when they are separated, it is a Kli from which part was removed. Even though a commoner can return it, as long as he did not return it, it is not complete.

Question (Ri): Also initially, we knew that it is a Kli from which part was removed. This is why we asked "for what are they useful?"!

The Gemara answered that by itself, neither the bell nor the clapper is useful, but because a commoner can return it [they are considered connected].

Explanation #1 (Rashi): The Beraisa about a scissors that comes apart was taught regarding [the Mishnah of a bell].

Rebuttal: [Rashi] did not investigate! The teaching of a bell and clapper is a Mishnah in Parah (12:5), and the teaching of a scissors is a Tosefta in Kelim (3:2).

Explanation #2 (Rav Pores, citing the Rashbam): Since a commoner can return it, even though now without a clapper it is not useful at all, since a commoner can return it, it is as if it is connected, and if clapper became Tamei, also the bell became Tamei, as if they were connected;

This affects when they will joined, the bell will not Metamei one who touches it. However, without joining them, only the clapper, which touched Tum'ah, is Metamei.

Support: The words connote like this. It says "and if you will say that it means that even though they are not connected, it is as if they are connected..."

Inference: Abaye holds like this. Since he attributes [the law] to a commoner's ability to return it, this implies that now it has no use at all. If it were not considered connected, how could it receive Tum'ah, since it has no use at all without returning it?!

Note: Maharshal and Maharam say that the following is a continuation of this Dibur.

Explanation #2 (cont.): Rava challenges Abaye [from the Mishnah which says that] a bell and its clapper are connected. [I.e.] if this [part] became Tamei, [also] this [part] became Tamei. This is only when they are joined. When they are not joined, if this [part] became Tamei, [the other] did not become Tamei. We are not concerned for a commoner's ability to return it, for now they are not joined.

Observation: From this Mishnah, we cannot prove that we discuss when they are joined, like [Rava] says "and if you will say [that even though they are not connected]..." (we could explain the Mishnah that they are not joined)!

However, from the Beraisa he proves that we discuss when they are joined.

Implied question: Rava could have challenged Abaye from the Beraisa alone!

Answer: [Rava] prefers to cite this [Mishnah] which explicitly discusses a bell and clapper to challenge Abaye, who also discusses a bell and clapper.

Note: Maharshal and Maharam say that the following is a continuation of this Dibur.

Explanation #2 (cont.): [Rava suggests] "and if you will say [that even though they are not connected]...", a Beraisa teaches a scissors that comes apart and the blade of a carpenter's plane;

These are two Beraisos in [the Tosefta in] Maseches Kelim. Each was taught by itself. The Reisha explicitly teaches that when they are joined, each receives Tum'ah by itself;

They decreed about Tum'ah not at the time of Melachah, that it is considered connected for Tum'ah, that this [part] becomes Tamei, when [the other part] becomes Tamei, for [when they are joined] resembles at the time of Melachah;

However, when they are joined, it connotes that there is not even a decree mid'Rabanan. If this [part] became Tamei, [the other part] did not become Tamei. [The Tana] is not concerned for a commoner's ability to return it.

Note: Maharshal and Maharam say that the following is a continuation of this Dibur.

Explanation #2 (cont.): Rather, Rava concludes "because he can bang it.' I.e. the bell receives Tum'ah, but the clapper, which is not proper to bang it (it will not ring), no (it does not receive Tum'ah);

Also [one blade of] a scissors or of a plane, without being joined, are proper for [cutting, which is] akin to their initial Melachah, and each receives Tum'ah by itself, like the Tosefta teaches.

Explanation #1 (Rashi): Tum'ah did not leave it when it separated after receiving Tum'ah, since it is proper to bang it, and it is like a wooden Kli that was punctured with a hole too small for pomegranates to leave. It is not Tahor from its Tum'ah. (Maharshal changes the text of Rashi. Our text of Rashi does not connote like this at all!)

Inference: He wants to say that from now and onwards, it does not receive Tum'ah.

Question #1 (Ri): Why does it not receive Tum'ah? Since the puncture is less than the Shi'ur [to be Metaher], it is as if it is totally intact!

Answer (Ri): Surely, it receives Tum'ah from now and onwards. Rashi struggled to explain like he did, because when they (i.e. bells by themselves) do not have a clapper, they are Tehorim, and they do not receive Tum'ah, even though it is proper to bang them;

This is unlike when it never had a clapper. Then, surely it is Tahor, since it is destined to put a clapper in, for it is made to make noise, and it is like unfinished metal Kelim;

However, once it was finished, i.e. it had a clapper, even if it was removed, it receives Tum'ah, for it does not lose the law of a Kli that it had previously.

Proof (Maharam): We learn from a pouch that was sewn, and he left [open] with a hole too small for pomegranates to leave. It is Tahor (Chulin 138a), even though an intact pouch that was torn less than is needed for pomegranates to leave, it receives Tum'ah;