This Week's Article

Cherev Ke'Chalal Revisited

Keilim (1:2) | Yisrael Bankier | 4 hours ago

Masechet Ohalot discusses tumah that emanates for a corpse. A corpse itself is an avi avot ha'tumah -- the highest form of tumah. The first Mishnah teaches that if a person becomes tameh from a corpse then the person becomes an av ha'tumah. The person requires the seven-day purification process involving the ashes from the parah aduma. If the person touched another person or object, they would become a rishon le'tumah and immersion in a mikveh would be sufficient to make them tahor.

The second Mishnah introduces the novelty that if a kli touches the corpse, then it too would stay on the same level of tumah as the corpse and become an avi avot ha'tumah. Similarly, if the kli touched a person that touch the corpse, it too would also be an av ha'tumah -- the same level as the person that touched the corpse.

This exception is based on the following pasuk (Bamidbar 19:16): "On the open field: Anyone who touches one slain by the sword, or one that died or a human bone, or a grave, shall be contaminated for seven days". Since the Torah writes "bechalal cherev oh bemet" the Chachamim understand that the cherev (sword) is considered like the cherev (corpse) such that it also becomes an avi avot hatumah. Previously (vol. 18 iss. 19) we looked at the debate regarding the material of the keilim for which this unique law applied.

The Tifferet Yisrael addresses just how similar this "cherev" is to the chalal. He first cites the position that it is exactly like the corpse and transfers tumah in the same ways -- maga (touch), masa (if carried) and be'ohel (this is the position of the Tosfot).

The Tifferet Yisrael however cites the Ramban that maintains that the kli cannot transfer tumah be'ohel and the Rambam that maintains that it can only transfer through direct contact (Tumat HaMet 5:13).

The Ramban (Bamidbar 19:16) explains that the reason why the kli is not a source of tumah in an ohel is because when the Torah teaches tumat ohel it specifically states a "person who dies in a tent" (19:14). We can explain that the Ramban understands that the novelty of tumat ohel is not because of the severity of the tumah being an avi avot ha'tumah, but rather that it is a law in specifically for tumah emanating from a corpse itself. The Ramban reasons that that must be the law. Were it not the case, the kohanim would not be able to enter any house, because every house has items that have been under the same covering as corpse.¹

The Otzar Iyunim (Metivta, p47) explain that behind the debate is the two ways of understanding the law of cherev ke'chalal. One way is that the cherev itself becomes a source of tumah (like the corpse). The other way is that the source of tumah is still the met. When someone touches the cherev it is as if he touched the met. The same is not the case if he is ma'ahil (covers over) the cherev.

The second approach is used by the Grach to answer a question of the Tosfot. The Gemara in Bava Kama (3b) explains that any derivate of an av ha'tumah is not the same as it. The Tosfot, aligning with their understanding of cherev ke'chalal, asks that our case appears to be one where the derivative is exactly the same. The Otzar Iyunim cites, in the name of the Grach, that the cherev did not receive tumah from the met. Instead, it is considered like part of (yet secondary) to the met and contact with it passes the tumah directly from the met.

¹ The Ramban continues that if someone touched the kli, even though they would be tameh for seven days, they would not require the mei chatat (the spring water prepared with the ashes of the para adumah) to become tahor. He cites the Gemara in Nazir (54b) as the source for this understanding.

Download