This Week's Article

Tumah Retzutzah

Ohalot (3:7) | Yechezkel Bankier | 2 hours ago

We have learnt that an ohel spreads tumat ha'met to everything inside it, and stops the tumah from spreading above it. The Mishnah (3:7) teaches that the minimum size needed for a roof to become an ohel is a tefach-by-tefach area and at least a tefach from the ground. The question is whether the height of the met is included in the height of the ohel. In other words, if the ohel was exactly a tefach high would the size of the met cause the ohel to be considered smaller than the required size and therefore not stop the tumah from spreading.

The Rambam (Tumat Met 12:1) when discussing the required size of an ohel says that the height of an ohel is a tefach from the ground, not a tefach from the top of the met. The Raavad (ibid) disagrees with the Rambam's ruling and says that for the ohel to spread the tumah there needs to be a tefach gap. Seemingly, the Raavad's opinion makes more sense, since the met physically reduces the height of the ohel.

To explain the Rambam's opinion, the Grach (ibid) cites the Mishnah (15:7) that discusses a house filled with earth or pebbles, where the Mishnah rules that the house remains an ohel unless one intended for the earth and pebbles to stay there permanently. If they were placed there temporarily, the earth and pebbles would be considered like a piece of furniture that would not reduce its size. Therefore, in our case, since the met will not stay in the ohel permanently, it cannot reduce the size of the ohel.

The Grach goes on to explain that the Raavad also agrees that the met cannot reduce the size of the ohel unless it was intended to be there permanently. He agrees it still has the status of an ohel. However, according to the Raavad, the ohel still will not be able to act is an ohel since the tumah is defined as tumah retzutzah, tumah in a confined space which will break through the ohel and not spread to the sides. He proves this from the Raavad's wording. When the Raavad argues with the Rambam he does not say that the tumah reduces the size of the ohel, rather he says that it is considered tumah retzutzah.

In summary both the Rambam and the Raavad agree that the met does not reduce the size the ohel; they disagree as to whether the met can be considered tumah retzutzah. To explain the reasoning behind their debate, the Grach brings a different debate between the Rambam and the Raavad regarding the definition of tumah retzutzah. The Rambam (Tumat Met 16:6) rules that any tumat met that is not situated under a tefach-by-tefach roof whose height is a tefach, is considered tumah retzutzah. We can learn from this that according to the Rambam the deciding factor as to whether a tumah is considered tumah retzutzah depends on whether it is situated inside an ohel. The Raavad (ibid) argues that tumah retzutzah is tumah that is within an enclosed space of less than a tefach regardless of whether it is an ohel or not.

Accordingly, we can explain that that is the debate in our case as well. As explained, both the Rambam and the Raavad agree that the met cannot reduce the size of the ohel and it retains its definition of an ohel. Consequently, we have a case where the met is situated in an ohel but is in an enclosed area of less than a tefach. According to the Rambam's definition, this would not be considered tumah retzutzah since the tumah is inside an ohel. However, according to the Raavad, since the met is in a space that has less than a tefach of room, it is considered to be tumah retzutzah.

Download