This Week's Article

Permanently Filled

Keilim (13:6) | Yisrael Bankier | 9 hours ago

The Mishnah (13:6) discusses keilim that are made of a combination of metal and other materials, and addresses when the vessel is treat like a metal kli. One case discussed is a ring that is made of both metal and coral.

The Mishnah rules that if the ring is made of metal and the seal made of coral, since the main part of the kli is metal, it is considered a metal kli and susceptible to tumah. If, however, it was the other way around, it is treated like a kli etz. For materials other than metal, if it does not have a receptacle, it is not susceptible to tumah.

The Tosfot Yom Tov however notes, that one might ask, even if the ring was made of coral, it should still be susceptible to tumah. That is because it does have a receptacle; it is fashioned to be able to contain the seal. Consequently, in both cases the ring should be susceptible to tumah.

The Tosfot Yom Tov however cites the Tosfot who explains that since that indentation in the ring is designed to be filled (by the seal) it is not defined as having a receptacle.

The Melo HaRoim however directs our attention to the Tosfot in Sukkah (12b). There the Gemara addresses whether arrows can be used for schach. The Gemara explains that if there is a hole in the wood shaft, where the arrowhead is inserted, then it may not be used as Schach because it is defined as a kli. Recall, that keilim or objects susceptible to tumah may not be used as schach. The Gemara continues that it was necessary to teach this law, because one might have thought that since the containing part of the shaft was meant to be filled, then it would not be considered a kli. The conclusion however is that it is nonetheless defined as a kli and cannot be used as schach. Note, that this directly contradicts the Tosfot's understanding of our Mishnah.

The Tosfot there also notes this difficulty. He cites for example the case of a stuffed ball, that is not susceptible to tumah. Even though the leather ball contains the stuffing, it does so permanently and is therefore not considered as having a beit kibul.

The Melo HaRoim writes that one must say that the difference is that in the case of the arrows, the arrowheads are sometimes removed. Nevertheless, he notes that the Tosfot writes that is difficult to accept that as an explanation.

The Rambam also rules that these arrows may not be used for schach (Sukkah 5:5) yet rules that if the containing part is made to be filled, then it is not considered as if it has a beit kibul (Keilim 2:3). The Rashba raises the apparent contradiction.

The Avi Ezri (Sukkah 5:5) cites the Meiri who also explains that the arrow shaft is considered a kli since the shaft would be removed from the head during war. That said the Avi Ezri argues that even when it is removed, it still is intended to be completed filled with the next arrowhead, so it should not be susceptible to tumah.

The Avi Ezri initially answered that the principle that it is considered asui le'malot -- made to be filled -- is only if it is intended to be filled permanently.

The Avi Ezri provides another explanation. The reason why if the kli is asui le'malot it is not susceptible to tumah, is because since its use is only when the cavity or indentation is filled with another piece, that is its form. It only takes its completed form when it is filled. In other words, the wooden element is considered like a simple (filled) piece of wood and not susceptible to tumah. When it comes to the arrow shaft however, since its function was to be removed from the arrowhead, it has is form, with the beit kibul, even without the arrowhead. This is despite the fact that it is intended to be filled with the next arrowhead.

Download