This Week's Article

The Modified Bench

Keilim (22:3) | Yisrael Bankier | 3 hours ago

The Mishnah (22:3) discusses a bench that is built in a way that it is supported by one wide leg at either end. The Mishnah teaches that if one of those legs breaks off, then the bench is tahor. If however, the other leg is also removed, the Mishnah explains that if bench (without the legs) is still a tephach high then it is susceptible to tumah. In other words, if it is still high enough that it is fit for sitting upon it can still be defined as a bench.

Let us return to the earlier case where only one of the legs was removed. The Mishnah ruled that the bench is tahor. That makes sense since, with only on side having a leg, it could not function as a bench.

The Tifferet Yisrael however notes that the Rambam rules that in that case the bench is still tameh. The Tosfot Yom Tov explains that that is the version of the Mishnah he found in Nuschat Eretz Yisrael. The Tosfot Yom Tov assumes that that is because people would still sit on it, in its slanted state.

The Tifferet Yisrael continues that that position makes sense. That is because the ruling would be no different from the bed we learnt about previously. Then we learnt that even if two of the legs at one end were removed along with the end horizontal piece, the bed is still tameh. That is because the now slanted bed is still fit for lying upon. If it was the side piece along with two of the legs at apposing ends that was removed, that case is debated. Chachamim maintain that it now tahor, however R' Nechamya argues that since it could still function whilst being supported against a wall, it is still tameh. The Tifferet Yisrael reasons that the bench could likewise continue to function with a side support.

The Chazon Ish (Keilim 26:12) however finds that version difficult, considered that the ruling of the bench would be the same as that of the sherafraf (footstool) that follows. If that were indeed true, one would expect that the Mishnah continue by teaching more succinctly, "so too is the law regarding the sherafraf|".

The Sidrei Taharot adds another reason why our version makes sense. The Mishnah (22:10) teaches that a bench that had one leg made of wood and another made of stone is tahor. If the second leg is not necessary for the bench to be tameh, then way would the presence of the second leg that is made of stone make the bench now tahor?¹

The Mishnah Achrona (22:10) however takes that same Mishnah as a proof the Rambam's version of the Mishnah. He cites the Mishnah in Zavim (4:7) to explain. There the Mishnah teaches that if a zav is lying on bed and there is a tallit under each of the legs, then they are all tameh. That is because since the bed relies on all the legs to stand, it is considered as if each leg is bearing most of the weight of the zav. Consequently, if we say that the bench would be tahor if one of the legs was missing, both legs are necessary. That being the case it is considered as if each leg is performing the full support. He reasons that it follows the bench should be tameh when one leg is wooden and the other stone. It is dependent on the wooden leg, so it should be considered a wooden kli and therefore tameh.

According to the Rambam's reading, the Mishnah makes sense. Since the bench would still be tameh if it stood on one leg, that would mean that one leg is sufficient. Standing with only one stone leg would be enough to defined it as a stone kli. That being said, each leg is, at best, only supporting the bench. We understand therefore why it is treated like a stone kli and therefore tahor.

¹ He suggest that it is possible that since it is more substantial with two legs, we considered the presence of the stone leg as being relied upon for this state, such that it is not tahor.

Download