This Week's Article

Tipping Keilim

Keilim (18:3) | Yisrael Bankier | 19 minutes ago

The eighteenth perek discusses large wooden keilim. We have learnt that since the Torah mentions wooden keilim alongside sacks, the Chachamim understood that wooden keilim are only susceptible to tumah if they can be moved about both full and empty, much like sacks. The Chachamim therefore understood that when the wooden kli is large, such that it has the volume of forty seah, it is no longer susceptible to tumah.

The third Mishnah discusses a cupboard or chest, where one of the legs was removed. The Mishnah teaches that the kli is tahor. What follows in the Mishnah depends on whether the next word is preceded with a vav.

The Bartenura's reading does not have the vav. Consequently, what follows is the explanation of the law. In other words, the reason why the kli is tahor is because, even though it can technically still contain items, it does not contain the items in the same manner in which it was designed. R' Yossi however disagrees.

The Bartenura however sites the Rambam whose reading does have the vav. That means that what follows in the Mishnah is a new case. The Mishnah therefore discusses a case where the kli, in its ordinary orientation, would not contain forty seah. If however, the kli is tipped on its side it would be able to. The first opinion is that since the volume is technically more the forty seah it is too big and not susceptible to tumah. R' Yossi maintains that since in its intended orientation it is does not contain forty seah, the kli is susceptible to tumah. This is also how the Rambam rules in the Mishnah Torah (Keilim 3:7).

The Mishnah Achrona however find the Rambam's explanation difficult. The Rambam (Keilim 3:1) teaches that if a wooden kli is designed to be left in place, even if the volume is small then it is tahor. Similarly, if the wooden kli is designed to be moved about, then even if the volume is large, it is susceptible to tumah. If it was built "stam", with no intent, then if it has a flat base and has a volume of forty seah then it is assumed to be left in place -- and tahor. The Mishnah Achrona therefore concludes that the volume itself is only an indication by which one can determine the intended design of the kli and not a hard measure in and of itself. That being the case, if the kli cannot contain forty seah in its resting stated, it should not matter what it could contain if it were tipped over.

The Mishnah Achrona therefore suggests that in this second case the kli could originally contain forty seah. Yet, a leg of the chest was removed, and it is tipping in a way that it cannot contain forty seah. This explanation needs more work, considering that it sounds like the first case in the Mishnah, where (according to this reading) everyone agrees that it would be tahor. The Mishnah Achrona explains that the reason why the first case is not debated is because the remaining legs could be removed and the kli would rest flat once again. In this case, that is not possible. It would only be able to rest in it original orientation if it was propped up. R' Yossi maintains that its new orientation is one where the kli can longer contain forty seah so that kli is tameh. Chachamim however argue that since it could contain forty se'ah with some support pieces -- as it was originally designed -- it is assumed to still be designed to be in its place.

Download