This Week's Article

Small Patches

Berachot (27:2) | Yisrael Bankier | 9 hours ago

The twenty-seventh perek begins by comparing the laws of tumah and how it differs depending on the material involved. The first in the list, for which all five laws in the Mishnah apply is begged -- material woven from either wool or linen.

In the second Mishnah we learnt that for all the other materials for them to be susceptible to tumah they need to be large enough for sitting or lying upon -- tumat midras -- and the size is different for the different materials listed. For begged, the minimum size for susceptibility to tumat midras is three by three tephachim. What is also different about begged is if it is three by three fingers width then it is susceptible to other forms of tumah.

The Bartenura explains that that is the minimum shiur because at that size it is useful for poor people. Rashi (Shabbat 29a, s.v. Chutz) explains that since it can be used to patch a poor person's clothing, it is defined as a kli. The Bartenura adds that its susceptibility, even at that size, is derived from the pasuk "ve'habegged".

It is important to note that even though the [sizing]{.underline} might be derived from the usefulness for a poor person, the Tosfot (Shabbat 47a, s.v. bigdei) explain that it is tameh at that size whether it belongs to a poor or wealthy person. R' Tam's proof is that this Mishnah does not differentiate regarding the ownership, whereas it does discusses bigdei aniyim specifically in the next perek (28:8).

The Chazon Ish (32:15) however asks the following question. If the sizing is based on its usefulness as a patch, then it is still lacking a maaseh; it is not yet attached to the garment. This case should then be comparable to leather that was intended to be used for straps, which we learnt was tahor.

The Chazon Ish directs our attention the Tosfot (Shabbat 63b, s.v. minayin) who also asks why a small patch should be susceptible to tumah. Recall that it is mentioned in the same pasuk as sackcloth from which we learn that for those keilim to be susceptible to tumah, it must be able to be carried both full and empty. The patch however does not have a receptacle. The Tosfot therefore explains that the susceptibility to tumah of pieces of cloth is because they can be used to wrap and carry small items, like gems or needles. Consequently, once again, the reference to its usefulness as a patch is only for the purposes of determining the minimum size, but not the reason why it is susceptible to tumah.

The Chiddushi R' Eliyahu MiGreidtz, notes that the Bartenura explains that this minimums sizing is only regarding a simple piece of cloth. If however, it was woven as a kli, for example a belt, then even a smaller size would be susceptible to tumah.

The Chazon Ish finds this distinction important for another law. We will learn (27:12) that if a small patch is thrown out, then it is no longer susceptible to tumah, and if it was tameh it is now tahor. Normally changing one's mind regarding the use of a kli is not enough to make it no longer tameh; some act must be performed on that kli, e.g. breaking it. Regarding this small patch however, we find the novelty that once it is thrown out, it loses any (or the minimal) importance it had, and it is equivalent to a broken kli. This would not be the law however for a woven belt. In that case, even if it is narrower than three fingers width, it is susceptible to tumah. In that case, throwing into the garbage would not be enough for it to lose its significance and it would not become tahor.

Download