This Week's Article

An Oven Fired without Knowledge

Keilim (5:4) | Yisrael Bankier | 9 hours ago

An earthenware oven is not susceptible to tumah until it is first fired up. The Mishnah (5:4) teaches that it will become "tameh", meaning it will become susceptible to tuamh, even if the fire was on the outside, or it was fired up without his knowledge, or even if it occurred in the middle of its manufacture.

The Bartenura notes that there are some sefarim that have the version tahor instead. However, he asserts that that is a mistake and the Mishnah should be read as we have it.

The Tosfot Yom Tov cites the Rash who explains that our version makes sense, since the Mishnah continues with the incident where a fire broke out in a pottery house and Rabban Gamliel ruled that the ovens were all tameh. In other words, an incident is brought that supports the ruling of the Mishnah.

The Rash however continues that that version that reads tahor, would understand that this is the position of the Chachamim, whilst Rabban Gamliel disagrees. The Melechet Shlomo comments that it is not uncommon in the Mishnah to find where a ruling is brought and an incident is then cited to present a dissenting opinion. Indeed the Rash cites the Tosfeta that brings a debate between Rabban Gamliel and the Chachamim regarding this very point.¹

The Rash continues that (according to this understanding) the Mishnah is only really discussing one principle and not three different cases. Being fired from the outside (for example if some heated food outside the oven) or if there was a fire in the craftsman's workplace are each examples of the oven being fired without one's knowledge. (He cites the Tosefta as support for this understanding.)

The Rash continues (according to this understanding) that one might have thought that these are three different cases where the oven would still be tahor. The fire was on the outside, it occurred without the owner's knowledge, and it occurred before the oven was finished. This however is not possible since the later Mishnah (5:6) implies that even if it was not fired inside, the oven would become susceptible to tumah. Consequently, it must be that according to this understanding, the other cases are simply examples of cases where it was done without daat². All that said, the Rash is not sure why for keilim, da'at is required.

The Shoshanim Le'David suggests that it is for a practical reason. Recall that there is a shiur, there is a minimum heat that the oven must reach, for the oven to become susceptible to tumah (5:1). The concern is that if it was not fired intentionally, one will not have paid attention to whether it has reached that temperature.³ He cites a proof from the case where one wanted to use an oven that was used for chametz for matzah. The ruling is that even if it was brought to a high heat one hundred times, if one did not bring it to that heat for the purpose of koshering, it would be ineffective, out of concerned it was not koshered properly.

Yisrael Bankier

¹ That said the Chazon Ish (Keilim 7:17) writes that in that same Tosefta it is R' Yehuda who maintains it is tahor and the Tana Kama argues that it is tameh. R' Yehuda cites the incident of the fire in Kfar Signa where the Chachamim maintained that the ovens were tahor and R' Gamilel argued it was tameh. R' Yehuda attempted to bring this as a proof for his position. Now the Tana Kama that argued either held like R' Gamliel or simply maintained that they did not argue regarding this case. The version that reads tahor would mean that our Mishnah is according to the opinion of R' Yehuda. See the next footnote.

² The Chazon Ish continues that this understanding does not fit the simple reading of the Mishnah. For this reason, as well as the point cited in the previous footnote, the version of the Mishnah we have is a simpler reading of the Mishnah.

³ One might ask that if that were the case, we should nonetheless rule stringently rather than being lenient and deeming the oven tahor, צ״ע.

Download

Calendar