This Week's Article

Blocks

Keilim (22:9) | Yisrael Bankier | 10 hours ago

The Mishnah (22:9) discusses a kofet -- a large block of wood -- that is going to be used as a chair. According to R' Akiva if one simply painted and smoothed out its face (asa'o panim), that would be enough for the block to be susceptible to tumah (tumat midras). According to the Chachamim however, after painting it would still be considered a basic block of wood, until a seating place was carved out of the block. We shall try to understand this Mishnah.

The Tifferet Yisrael explains that R' Akiva treats this block just like the homeowners' baking boards that we learnt about previously (15:2). In that case, painting them was sufficient for them to become susceptible to tumah.

The Chachamim however argue that the baking boards are different. Those boards were already fit for purpose prior to any paint work -- they were already considered a kli. However, since they were flat boards they were considered peshutei klei etz. In other words, they were defined as a wooden kli without a receptacle and therefore not susceptible to tumah. That is why once it was painted, it was enough for the Chachamim to make a gezeira to consider them as being keilim, so as not to confuse them without other wooden keilim that are susceptible to tumah. The kofet however is just a block and not considered a kli at all, even though one could technically sit on it. That is why it required a more substantial act for it to be defined as a seat.

The Chazon Ish (Keilim 26:16) explains that it would not need to be defined as a kli to be susceptible. It would be enough if it were defined as a moshav -- a seat. Nevertheless, since people don't sit on simple block of wood and it would readily be used for something else, it is not defined as a moshav without some alterations.

The Tifferet Yisrael explains that this Mishnah then aligns with another earlier Mishnah (20:4). That Mishnah discusses a broken trough that was going to be repurposed as a seat. There also, the Chachamim require a more substantial modification for the trough to become susceptible to tumah. He continues that even though machshava, a decision to repurpose a kli, would normally be sufficient, that is only when dealing with an object that is considered a kli.

The Tifferet Yisrael (Boaz 8) however notes that this distinction does not work according to the Rambam. That is because the Rambam also defines the kofet as a peshutei klei etz. Accordingly, there must be a different distinction between the kofet and the baking boards. The Tifferet Yisrael therefore suggest that the boards already have some to'ar kli -- it has the form of a kli. Our case is different; it is a simple block of wood, and a more substantial modification therefore is required.

There is another way we can explain the difference between the two Mishnayot according to the Rambam. The Mishnah Achrona explains that the difference between the two Mishnayot is that in this case we are forming a seat about which people are more particular. That is why more effort is required. Interestingly, he explains that if the face was indeed smoothed out, that would be a substantial act even according to the Chachamim. Consequently, he explains that asa'o panim should be understood like the Rambam's comment that it is relating to the paintwork alone.

Download