This Week's Article

Two Sides of a Plank

Ohalot (12:3) | Yisrael Bankier | 3 hours ago

The Mishnah (12:3) discusses the case of a simple plank of wood placed on the top of a tanur (oven). Unlike in the earlier Mishnah (12:1), in this case the plank only over hangs the oven at its ends of the plank but not over its sides.¹ The Mishnah records a debate in this case where tumat ha’met was placed under one end, and objects or food was placed under the other. The Chachamim maintain that those objects are tahor whereas R’ Yossi disagrees. We shall try to understand the debate.

The Bartenura explains that the Chachamim maintain that since the plank does not overhang on the sides, the tumah has no way of spreading to the other side. In other words, even though the plank is made of one material, the two sides are considered separate ohalot. R’ Yossi however argues that the presence of the tanur in the middle cannot stop the tumah from passing to the other side.

The Mishnah states that the case involves an “old” tanur, meaning that it is susceptible to tumah. A point that is discussed is whether the plank is attached and sealed on top of the tanur, thereby protecting it from becoming tameh.

The Tifferet Yisrael maintains that that must be the case in order to understand the opinion of the Chachamim. Otherwise, the tanur itself would become tameh and not be able to stop the tumah from reaching the other side of the plank. That explains the Chachamim’s position. However, if the tanur is not susceptible to tumah how do we understand the position of the R’ Yossi? The Tifferet Yisrael explains that he understands that since the ohalot are made from one material, the presence of the oven between is ignored.

The Mishnah Achrona however explains that the Mishnah makes not mention that it is sealed. Furthermore, even if the plank is sealed, we have learnt that a kli, even if it is tahor, cannot chotzet – it cannot prevent the spread of tumat ha’met.

The Mishnah Achrona therefore suggest the plank is indeed sealed atop of the oven. This case however is different because the tahor kli is not above the tumah, but instead potentially preventing its sideward spread. The debate between the Chachamim and R’ Yossi then is whether the limitation that a tahor kli cannot chotzetz is only when the kli is above or also from the side.

The Tifferet Yisrael (Boaz 12:3) also addresses this question. He explains that the reason why a kli that is sealed and tahor cannot chotzetz when it is between the tumat ha’met and the kli that is above it is because we ignore its presence – it is as if it is not there. Consequently, the tumah and tahor object are viewed as being over one another. In our case however, if you do the same and view the oven along with the parts of the plank that is sealed to it as not present, then there is no longer a single plank that is covering the source of tumat ha’met and the objects on the other side.

¹ See volume 12 Issue 26 where we discussed that Mishnah in more detail.

Download