(שייך לע"ב) המבריך¹ את הגפן—One who bends a grapevine

OVERVIEW The גמרא cites a משנה that if one is מבריך a גפן in the ground,² one may not plant seeds directly on top of the buried vine unless it is buried three טפחים or more. The ברייתא states that one may plant seeds at the sides of the buried vine. תוספות clarifies and explains these rules.

פירוש³ גפן יחידי שהוא מושרש בארץ וכופף את הגפן⁴ באמצעיתו – The explanation of המבריך את הגפן is that we are discussing a single grapevine which is rooted in the ground, and he bends one of the vines in the middle – ומכסהו בקרקע ונשרש שם – And covers this vine with earth, and it takes root there – וקאמר מותר לזרוע את הצדדין – And the ברייתא rules that it is permitted to seed on the sides of this covered vine – דאף על גב שאינו רחוק שלשה טפחים ויונק עם הגפן מתחת הקרקע⁵ – For even though that it is not distanced three טפחים from the covered vine and so it nourishes together with the vine underneath the ground, nevertheless – כיון דמעל הקרקע ליכא עירבוביא שרי כדמוכח בעירובין (דף צג,א) ובמסכת כלאים (פרק ד') – Since aboveground there is no mixing,⁶ it is permitted, as is evident from the גמרות in מסכת עירובין and מסכת כלאים, where it states – דזה סומך לגדר מכאן וזה מכאן⁷ – This one (בעל הגפן) may plant close to the fence from this side, and the other one (בעל הזרעים)**** may plant close to the fence from his side תוספות asks: ואם תאמר והיכי דמי שזורע לצדדין – And if you will say; but how is this case where he is seeding on the side – אי כשהרחיק ג' טפחים מן הצדדין אפילו על גביו נמי ואי בלא הרחיק מן הצדדין נמי לא – If he distanced himself three טפחים from the sides of the protruding vine,⁸ he should be permitted to seed even on top of the buried vine, and if he did not distance three טפחים from the protruding vine he should not be permitted to seed even on the sides of the buried vine⁹ – תוספות answers: ואומר רבינו יצחק דמיירי כשזורע הצדדין ברחוק ג' טפחים מגפן היוצא מן הקרקע מכל צד – And the ר"י answered that this is a case where he planted on the sides of the buried vine at a distance of three טפחים on all sides¹⁰ from the vine which protrudes from the ground – דליכא ערבוביא למעלה מן הקרקע – So there is no mixture above ground – ומכל מקום אסור לזרוע על גביו מפני שהשרשין נכנסין בתוך הגפן – But nevertheless it is forbidden to plant directly on top of the buried vine because the roots of the plant will enter into the buried vine, and even though it is not כלאים – והוי כמרכיב זרעים באילן דאסור¹¹ – But it is like grafting plants into a tree which is forbidden. תוספות asks: ואם תאמר ומאי איריא דנקט גפן אפילו שאר אילן נמי אסור¹² – And if you will say; so why does the משנה mention גפן specifically, since the issue is הרכבה, so even by other trees it is also אסור?! תוספות answers: ואומר רבינו יצחק דשאר אילנות שהן קשין מותר לזרוע על גביו כנגד השורש – And the ר"י says that other trees which their trunk and roots are hard, it is permitted to plant on top of it even directly on the root – דלא חיישינן שיכנס שורש הזרע בתוך האילן שהוא קשה – For we are not concerned that the root of the plant will enter into the root of the tree and be considered grafting (הרכבה), since it is hard and it cannot penetrate –

However by a גפן which is soft we are concerned that the root of the seed will penetrate into the root of the גפן and it will be הרכבה. And the ר"י found this answer in תלמוד ירושלמי on the גמרא of this משנה.

SUMMARY By a lone grapevine there is no concern of יניקה, only for ערבוביא. There is a concern for הרכבה from seeds by a גפן since its vines and roots are soft.

THINKING IT OVER Do רש"י and תוספות agree here, or is there a מחלוקת here between רש"י and תוספות?¹⁵

footnotes: ¹ This תוספות references the גמרא on the עמוד ב'. ² The process of הברכה is that one takes one of the (attached) vines (from a grapevine) and buries part of it in the ground (enabling it to take root) and allows the other (unattached) end of the vine to remain above ground as a new grapevine. ³ See also רש"י ד"ה המבריך. See ‘Thinking it over’. ⁴ The branches (vines) of a grapevine are very pliable and can be bent without breaking them. ⁵ Plants can nourish from the same earth if they are within three טפחים of each other. This should seemingly be considered כלאים. ⁶ He is not planting within three טפחים of the protruding vines aboveground. We do not see two different species growing next to each other. ⁷ They may plant right up to the fence, even though they are within three טפחים of each other and they will be יונק from the same קרקע underground, nevertheless it is permitted since the fence prevents ערבוביא. ⁸ Let us assume that the vine is buried for a length of ten טפחים. The two protruding vines (the one end attached to the original vine and the other unattached vine) are ten טפחים distance from each other. He should then be permitted to seed on top of the middle four טפחים of the buried vine, since he is (at least) three טפחים distance from either protruding vine. ⁹ From what was said until now it is apparent that we are not concerned for יניקה underground, only for ערבוביא above ground. Therefore all that matters is that he distance himself three טפחים from the protruding vines and then he should be able to plant even on top of the buried vine, for there is no issue with יניקה. ¹⁰ There is no seeding being done within a radius of three טפחים from the protruding vine on all sides. ¹¹ See קידושין לט,א where שמואל derives it from the פסוק (in ויקרא [קדושים] יט,יט) of את חקתי תשמרו שדך וגו'. ¹² כלאים is by a גפן, however the איסור הרכבה is by any tree. ¹³ A marginal note indicates that other text read this 'פירכא' (not פירוקא). See footnote # 14. ¹⁴ פרק ז' ה"א.(right after the משנה). The ירושלמי there asks basically the same question as תוספות (that will explain the גירסא of פירכא [see footnote # 13]), and gives (somewhat) the same answer (although not that explicitly), עיי"ש. ¹⁵ See מראה עוזר.

התם בשופכין—There it is by pouring

OVERVIEW The גמרא explained that when our משנה stated that we must distance מי רגלים from a wall, it was regarding pouring out a urinal full of urine near the wall; however an individual may urinate near the wall. תוספות explains the necessity of this ruling.

תוספות asks: ואם תאמר בשלמא אי מיירי במשתין¹ אף על גב דתנא ליה אמת המים תנא ליה נמי האי – And if you will say; the משנה is properly understood if we are discussing urinating, for then even though the משנה taught that one must distance an irrigation ditch,² nevertheless the משנה also teaches מי רגלים – דסלקא דעתין משום צניעותא לישתרי – For we may have mistakenly assumed that on account of modesty it is permitted to be urinate near the wall, where he is somewhat concealed, therefore the משנה teaches this novelty that notwithstanding the requirement of צניעות, it is still forbidden – אבל אי מיירי בשופכין מאי קא משמע לן הא תנא ליה אמת המים – However if the משנה is discussing pouring out a full urinal, what is the משנה teaching us by including מי רגלים, the משנה already taught us אמת המים so that would seemingly include מי רגלים as well –**** תוספות goes on to prove that the משנה does not repeat itself: דמהאי טעמא אמר לעיל³ דלא תני חול – For our משנה did not teach חול for this very reason, as the גמרא previously stated – תוספות answers:

One can say; that sand is different from מי רגלים, for the sand is near the wall all the time, however these מי רגלים are gone in an instant!

SUMMARY The novelty of distancing שופכין של מי רגלים is that they are absorbed immediately.

THINKING IT OVER תוספות writes that there is a greater novelty by מי רגלים over אמת המים (that they are absorbed immediately).⁸ If that is the case why did not the משנה teach us distancing only by מי רגלים and we would know for sure that the same rule applies to אמת המים.⁹

footnotes: ¹ Initially the גמרא assumed that (even) for urinating, one must distance himself from the wall. ² We know therefore that water is damaging to the wall, so why mention urinating; it is the same thing?! ³ On the preceding עמוד א'. The גמרא explained there that the משנה does not mention the distancing of moist sand (from a wall) since it already mentions אמת המים. The same should apply here; why mention שופכין של מי רגלים when we were already taught אמת המים. ⁴ Therefore they are similar to אמת המים, which is also there all the time, so if אמת המים needs to be distanced, sand also needs to be distanced. Therefore the משנה had no reason to repeat itself by mentioning it ⁶ The משנה needs to teach us that מי רגלים need to be distanced, for we would have thought that since the מי רגלים are absorbed into the ground immediately, they do not cause the same type of damage as אמת המים (and חול) and they do not require distancing, therefore the משנה teaches us that even שופכין של מי רגלים require distancing from the wall. See ‘Thinking it over’. ⁸ See footnote # 5. ⁹ See מהר"ם.

ותיובתא דרבה בר בר חנה—And it is a refutation of Rabah Bar Bar Chono

OVERVIEW רבה בר בר חנה ruled that one may urinate near his neighbor’s wall, and brought proof to this from a פסוק which states¹ משתין בקיר (urinating by the wall). The גמרא refutes this from a ברייתא which states that one may not urinate next to a wall, except if the wall is built on a rock it is permitted. תוספות explains that we cannot reject this refutation of רבב"ח.

תוספות responds to an anticipated difficulty: ולא מצי לשנויי דכי קאמר רבה בר בר חנה בצונמא – And the גמרא could not have answered on behalf of רבב"ח, that when did רבב"ח rule that it is permitted, only by a rock (צונמא); where the ברייתא also permits it. The reason the גמרא did not offer this answer –

Firstly, רבב"ח should have clarifed himself explicitly, and furthermore since he is expounding the פסוק, we can derive from this that he does not differentiate between a צונמא and other types of walls.****

SUMMARY רבב"ח permits משתין בקיר in all circumstances since he was not explicit otherwise, and the פסוק certainly does not distinguish.

THINKING IT OVER תוספות offers two reasons⁵ why we cannot say that רבב"ח meant בצונמא. Which of those two reason is the relatively stronger one?

footnotes: ¹ מלכים א' כא,כא reads, וְהִכְרַתִּי לְאַחְאָב מַשְׁתִּין בְּקִיר וְעָצוּר וְעָזוּב בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל. ² He should have said that one may be משתין if it is בצונמא as the ברייתא specified. An אמורא should be at least as specific as the ברייתא, if not more. ³ See ‘Thinking it over’. ⁴ רבב"ח assumed that משתין בקיר refers to people; if the פסוק refers to a person as משתין בקיר it cannot be that the פסוק is referring only to those who were משתין בצונמא, the פסוק meant all the people (according to רבב"ח) including those that are משתין בקיר that is not צונמא. ⁵ See footnote # 3.

אמר רב טובי רקיק אינו ממעט—Rav Tuveeruled that a wafer does not diminish

OVERVIEW If there is a corpse in one room and there is a window (opening) between this room and an adjacent room, the טומאה extends into the adjacent room, provided that the opening is sufficient (let us assume a טפח square¹). If one places a thin wafer (רקיק) in this opening so it is no longer a פותח טפח, the טומאה still spreads into the adjacent room, since he does not intend to let it remain there. תוספות explains why this ruling (of טומאה) was cited in our גמרא (regarding הרחקת נזיקין).

This ruling was stated here since the גמרא will ask later concerning זרעים that since זרעים harm a wall, he will remove them.

SUMMARY There is a question on רב טובי based on a ruling of our משנה.

THINKING IT OVER The גמרא (when asking on רב טובי) never cites our משנה (rather it asks from other sources), so even though the explanation of one of the questions⁴ is based on our משנה, is that sufficient reason to cite a סוגיא of טומאה in the middle of הרחקת נזיקין?!

footnotes: ¹ See following תוס' ד"ה רקיק. ² כ,א. The גמרא there challenges the ruing of רב טובי from a ברייתא which states that grasses are ממעט בחלון. The question the גמרא asks is since the grasses will be removed (just like the רקיק), why are they ממעט. The assumption that the עשבין will be removed is based on our משנה that זרעים are קשו לכותל. That is the (tenuous) connection between our סוגיא and the ruling of רב טובי. See ‘Thinking it over’. ³ The הגהות הב"ח amends this to read אזרעים (instead of זרעים). ⁴ See footnote # 2.

רקיק אינו ממעט בחלון—A wafer does not diminish the window Overview¹ This תוספות will discuss the size of an opening which is required in order for טומאה to extend from one room to the adjacent room (or from a lower floor to a higher floor) and have the adjacent room considered an אוהל for טומאה.

דיני חלון פירש רבינו יצחק בן רבינו מרדכי על פי המשניות² – The ריב"ם explained the laws regarding the size of a window (to extend the טומאה) according to the משניות, as follows – דאם הוא חלון העשוי לתשמיש³ שיעורו להביא טומאה⁴ בפותח טפח – That if it is a window which is made for utility, the size of the opening which is required to extend the טומאה is the opening of a טפח squared (a טפח by a טפח) – וכשיתמעט מטפח אפילו במשהו אינו מביא – And when it becomes less than a טפח squared even by a miniscule amount, it cannot extend (מביא) the טומאה into the adjacent room – ואם הוא חלון שעשוי לאורה⁵ ועשוי בידי אדם שיעורו כמלא מקדח גדול של לשכה⁶ – And if it is a window which is made for lighting purposes and it was man made, its required size is like the full width of the large drill in the לשכה – שהוא כמלא פונדיון האיטלקי שהוא סלע נירונית⁷ והיא יתירה על סלע סתם – Which the מקדח גדול was the size of an Italian פונדיון which is the same size as a סלע of נירון, which is larger than a ‘regular’ סלע – דסלע סתם הוא פחות ממלא מקדח סתם וכל שכן ממקדח גדול כדאמרינן בבכורות (דף לז,ב) – For a regular סלע is smaller than an ordinary מקדח, and it is certainly smaller than the large מקדח, as the גמרא states in מסכת בכורות – ואותו חלון שעשוי לאורה אינו מתמעט מסתימת משהו⁸ כיון שהיה בו כשיעור – And that window which was made for light, does not become diminished through a miniscule closing, since initially it had the required amount – אלא עד שיתמעט שלא יהא בשיריים⁹ רום אצבעים¹⁰ על רוחב גודל – Rather it becomes diminished when the remainder is less than (two fingerbreadths high) [a finger] by the width of the thumb – ומאור שאינו עשוי בידי אדם אלא מעצמו כגון חררוהו מים או שרצים שיעורו מלא אגרוף – However a window which is not man made, but happened by itself; for instance, water or vermin bored the hole, its שיעור to be מביא את הטומאה is the size of a (large) fist – חישב עליו לתשמיש שיעורו פותח טפח למאור שיעורו מלא מקדח¹¹ – If he intended to utilize this self-made window, its שיעור is a square טפח, but if he decided to use it for light its שיעור is a מלא מקדח – ומלא אגרוף מפרש התם באגרופו של בן אבטיח ורבי יוסי אומר בראש כל אדם¹² – And the גמרא there in בכורות explains that by the size of a fist we mean the fist of בן אבטיח (a large person) and ר"י says that מלא אגרוף is the size of any person’s head – ושאינו עשוי¹³ לאורה ולא לתשמיש אלא לאויר ולשמור גנות ופרדסים – And a חלון which is not used neither for utility, nor for light, but rather for air or to watch from it gardens and orchards – אותו שיעורו כמלא מקדח בינוני: Its שיעור is like an average מקדח. Summary סוג החלון שיעורו שיעורו אם נסתם חלון העשוי לתשמיש פותח טפח אפילו משהו חלון העשוי בידי אדם לאור מלא מקדח גדול אצבע על רוחב גודל¹⁴ חלון שנעשה מאליו מלא אגרוף אפילו משהו חלון שנעשה מאליו וחישבו לתשמיש פותח טפח אפילו משהו חלון שנעשה מאיליו וחישבו למאור מלא מקדח קטן אפילו משהו חלון שעשוי לאויר מלא מקדח בינוני אפילו משהו The size of the various openings in ascending order is; מקדח קטן, מקדח בינוני, מקדח גדול, פותח טפח, מלא אגרוף.

THINKING IT OVER

1. Why is there this difference that by a חלון העשוי לתשמיש, it is not מביא טומאה even if מיעטו במשהו, however by a חלון העשוי בידי אדם לאור, it is מביא טומאה,¹⁵ unless it is smaller than אצבע על רוחב גודל?
2. Why is there this difference that by a חלון העשוי בידי אדם לאור the שיעור is מלא מקדח גדול; however the שיעור for a חלון שנעשה מאיליו וחישבו למאור is¹⁶ מלא מקדח קטן?

footnotes: ¹ See ‘Overview to the previous תוס' ד"ה אמר. ² This is referring to the משניות in מס' אהלות פרק יג. ³ This can mean that the (base of the) window is used as a shelf, or the opening is used as a means of transferring items from one room to the other through the opening of this window. ⁴ If the corpse is in room ‘a’ and there is a window of a פותח טפח into room ‘b’; room ‘b’ is also considered an אהל המת and whatever is found in room ‘b’ is טמא as if it was in room ‘a’, where the מת is. ⁵ The purpose of this window is to bring in light from one room to the other. (One room may be open to the outdoors while the other is not). ⁶ A לשכה (office) is a room in the ביהמ"ק; in one of these rooms they had tools for repairing the ביהמ"ק. Among those tools was the large drill (there was also a medium and small drill). Presumably a מקדח גדול is (still) smaller than a טפח. ⁷ This is referring to נירון קיסר (commonly known as the Emperor Nero). ⁸ A small obstruction in this window (for light), which makes its opening less than the שיעור of a מקדח הגדול, does not remove its capacity to be מביא את הטומאה, Rather it must be a large obstruction that makes the opening very small. See ‘Thinking it over’ # 1. ⁹ The הגהות הב"ח amends this to read, בשיריים כי אם אצבע על (instead of בשיריים רום אצבעים על). ¹⁰ An אצבע is the finger next to the thumb. ¹¹ This means a מקדח קטן. See ‘Thinking it over’ # 2. ¹² The head of an average person. ¹³ The הגהות הב"ח amens this to read עשוי לא לאורה (instead of עשוי לאורה). ¹⁴ This follows the גירסת הב"ח (in footnote # 9). ¹⁵ See footnote # 8. ¹⁶ See footnote # 11.

מאי איריא רקיק כולי—Why mention a wafer, etc.

OVERVIEW ר' טובי taught that placing a wafer (רקיק) in a window will not diminish (ממעט) the opening of the window and it will still be מביא את הטומאה from one room to the next. The גמרא asked why mention a thin wafer (רקיק), even a thick wafer will also not be ממעט. Our תוספות explains the sגמרא' question.¹

השתא סלקא דעתין דנקט רקיק דוקא משום דאית ביה תרתי – The גמרא now assumed that ר' טובי mentioned רקיק specifically because there are two reason why a רקיק should not be ממעט – חדא² דלא סתימה מעלייתא לפי שהוא רך ועשוי ליפול ועוד שאינו מבטלו – Firstly a רקיק it is not a good closing, because it is soft and prone to fall, and additionally he is not nullifying it to remain in the window; he intends to remove it and eat it –

Therefore the גמרא asks, even by a thick wafer which will last, it is also not ממעט, since he is not nullifying it (to remain in the window), therefore it is not ממעט.

SUMMARY There is more reason (in the הו"א) to assume that רקיק is not ממעט, since it can fall easily and he is not מבטל, as opposed to עבה where only the second reason applies.

THINKING IT OVER Seemingly what is the sגמרא' question?⁴ The reason ר' טובי mentioned רקיק, is because only a thin wafer is not ממעט, since it is not that substantive, it will fall down, however a thick wafer, which is substantive and will not fall down is indeed ממעט.⁵

footnotes: ¹ The גמרא asks אפילו עבה נמי; indicating that there is more reason for a רקיק to be ממעט than עבה. The anticipated question of תוספות is why! Seemingly the reason why a רקיק is not ממעט is that the owner will remove it in order to eat it, so even though it may become disgusting (ממאיס), nevertheless we say that he will remove it and eat it. This same reasoning applies to עבה, why is there a greater חידוש by עבה (that the גמרא asks ‘אפילו עבה’) than by a רקיק. ² The הגהות הב"ח amend this to read, חדא דלאו סתימה מעלייתא היא לפי (instead of חדא דלא סתימה מעלייתא לפי) ³ Since by רקיק there are two reasons why it is not ממעט, and by עבה there is only one reason, so there is a greater חידוש by עבה that it is not ממעט than by רקיק, therefore the גמרא asks אפילו עבה נמי. See ‘Thinking it over’. ⁴ See footnote # 3. ⁵ See מהרש"א.

ותיפוק ליה—And let him derive this

OVERVIEW רב טובי taught that a רקיק is not ממעט בחלון. The גמרא explained that he mentioned רקיק (and not עבה) to teach us that even though ממאיס, nevertheless he is not מבטל it and therefore it is not ממעט. The גמרא then asked, let him derive that the רקיק is not מבטל since it is a דבר המקבל טומאה. Our תוספות discusses this question.¹

אפילו² אם יבטלו³ דאינו חוצץ משום דמקבל טומאה – [The explanation of the sגמרא' question is] even if he is מבטל the רקיק to the חלון, it will not block the טומאה from expanding since the רקיק is מקבל טומאה, and the rule is that a דבר המקבל טומאה אינו חוצץ בפני הטומאה – תוספות asks: ותימה אם יבטל ליה תו לא מקבל טומאה וטהור כדמוכח בפרק העור והרוטב (חולין דף קכט,א ושם) – And it is astounding; if he is מבטל the רקיק to the חלון,⁴ it will not be מקבל טומאה anymore, as is evident in פרק העור והרוטב – דאמר כיפת שאור שייחדה לישיבה בטלה⁵ ובית שסיככו בזרעים טהורים ⁶ – Where the גמרא states; ‘A ball of sourdough which he set aside for sitting, is nullified (and not considered שאור anymore), and a house which was covered with seeds in their stalks are טהורים’, they are not מקבל טומאה – אלמא כיון דבטליה לא מקבל טומאה⁷ – It is evident that since he was מבטל them from being food they are no longer מקבל טומאה; the same should be here regarding the רקיק that once he was מבטל it (since it is ממאיס) it should no longer be מקבל טומאה! תוספות answers: ויש לומר דהתם מיירי כגון דעבד בהו שינוי מעשה – And one can say that there (in פרק העור והרוטב) it is a case where he did an act to change the food into something else – דהא אמרינן (שבת דף נב,ב) כל הכלים יורדין לידי טומאה במחשבה⁸ – For the משנה states all utensils become capable of receiving טומאה by thought alone – ואין עולין מטומאה אלא על ידי שינוי מעשה והוא הדין באוכלין דבעינן שינוי מעשה⁹ – But it does not leave it status of being מקבל טומאה, only through a שינוי מעשה, and the same law which applies to utensils applies to food that we require a שינוי מעשה in order that it should cease being אוכלין –**** תוספות proves that by אוכלין we also require a שינוי מעשה to remove them מתורת אוכלין: דאפילו בידות האוכלין¹⁰ מוכח בפרק קמא דסוכה (דף יד,א ושם) – For it is evident in the first פרק of מסכת סוכה that even regarding the ‘hands’ of food – דאיכא תנא דאית ליה דבעינן בהו שינוי מעשה: That there is a תנא who requires שינוי מעשה by ידות that they should cease to be מקבל טומאה, so certainly all would agree that by actual food we require a שינוי מעשה to no longer consider them food.

SUMMARY For a food not be considered food any longer it requires שינוי מעשה, however ביטול במחשבה alone is insufficient.

THINKING IT OVER From תוספות (introduction and question) it seems that תוספות understood the question of ותיפוק ליה as a continuation of the previous discussion (whether there is a greater חידוש by רקיק over עבה), and therefore תוספות asks his question.¹¹ However it is possible that the גמרא is asking a new question (regardless whether it is רקיק or עבה); what is the חידוש of ר' טובי, it is obvious that it is not ממעט, since it is an אוכל which is מקבל טומאה, and something which is מקבל טומאה is not חוצץ בפני הטומאה!¹²

footnotes: ¹ Seemingly רב טובי did not give any reason why the רקיק is not ממעט בחלון, so how can the גמרא ask ותיפוק ליה that it is a דבר המקבל טומאה; who says that this is not the reason why אינו ממעט?! ² The הגהות הב"ח amends this to read פירוש אפילו אם (instead of אפילו אם). ³ The גמרא previously asked why state רקיק and not עבה, which is a greater חידוש (see previous תוס' ד"ה מאי [TIE footnote # 3]), and the גמרא answered that there is a greater חידוש by רקיק for since it is ממאיס he may be מבטל. The גמרא therefore asks that the whole issue of מבטל is irrelevant, for since it can be מקבל טומאה it is not חוצץ, so the original question remains why state רקיק and not עבה. This may explain the word 'פירוש', which the הגהות הב”ח inserts. See (however) ‘Thinking it over’. ⁴ תוספות just explained the sגמרא' question to mean that even if he is מבטל it still will not be חוצץ, since it is a דבר המקבל טומאה, but this is not so, for once he is מבטל it from being food, it no longer is מקבל טומאה. ⁵ Once he designated this ball of sourdough to be used as a chair it is no longer considered שאור (which one may not have in his possession on פסח), but rather it is considered to be a chair and he may keep it in his רשות (and it is also not מקבל טומאה anymore [as a food] since it is בטל from being food). ⁶ He covered the roof of his house with stalks of grain, so even the grain in the stalks cease to be considered זרעים (which normally are מקבל טומאה) and are טהור that they cannot be מקבל טומאה since they cease to be considered אוכלין. ⁷ How can the גמרא ask (see footnote # 3) that even if he is מבטל, it is still not חוצץ because it is מקבל טומאה, when in fact once he is מבטל, it is no longer מקבל טומאה! ⁸ A כלי does not become טמא unless it is a finished product. In certain instances the decision whether at this point it is a finished product or more needs to be done, depends on the person. If at some point he decides במחשבה that it is complete, then it can be מקבל טומאה. ⁹ Therefore by the כופת שאור where he was מייחד it לישיבה (by shaping it in a certain way) and by the זרעים,where he placed them on the roof to become roofing material there was a שינוי מעשה and therefore they are not מקבל טומאה, however here, he merely placed the רקיק in the window with the intention (perhaps) to eat it later, nothing was done to indicate that it is no longer considered food, so even if he was מבטל it במחשבה not to eat it, that is not sufficient to remove it מתורת אוכלן, since there was no מעשה. ¹⁰ ידות האוכלין refers to the stem of a fruit (or stalk of grain) which is attached to the fruit and is a ‘handle’ how we hold the fruit. If the ידות are detached from the food they are not מקבל טומאה, however when they are attached to the fruit they are considered part of the fruit and are מקבל טומאה (even if the טומאה touched them alone or the fruit alone in all cases the ידות are טמא). ¹¹ See footnote # 3. ¹² See נחלת משה.

שנילושה במי פירות—That it was kneaded with fruit juices

OVERVIEW The גמרא explained the reason the רקיק is not considered אוכלין is because it was kneaded במי פירות so therefore it was never מוכשר לקבל טומאה. Our תוספות offers another possible solution as to why it is not מקבל טומאה.

הוי מצי לשנויי כגון שאין בו כביצה ובמסכת אהלות (פרק י"ג משנה ה') – The גמרא could have answered that it is not מקבל טומאה if for instance the רקיק was not the size of an egg, for in מס' אהלות, the משנה there –

Includes foods that are smaller than a ביצה, among these items which lessen the size of a טפח which is required to bring the טומאה (in certain cases).⁴

SUMMARY Food which is less than a כביצה is ממעט (unless he is not מבטל and intends to eat it).

THINKING IT OVER Is there any advantage in תוספות answer (of פחות מכביצה) over the sגמרא' answer (שנילושה במי פירות), or vice versa?

footnotes: ¹ This is if he intends to leave it in the חלון (permanently), and not to remove it and eat it. ² The הגהות הב"ח amends this to read, הנך שממעטים (deleting the word שאמר). ³ Therefore if this רקיק was less than a כביצה even if it was kneaded with water, it will still not be considered אוכלין and will theoretically be ממעט in the חלון, so the only reason it is not ממעט is that since he intends to eat it, he is not מבטל it to the חלון. ⁴ See תוס' ד"ה רקיק (TIE there in the ‘Summary’).

מי פירות—Fruit juices

OVERVIEW The גמרא explained that the רקיק cannot be מקבל טומאה, because the dough was not kneaded with water, but rather with fruit juices.¹

פירש רבינו חננאל כגון שמן – The ר"ח explained an example for מי פירות is olive oil, for instance – ולא דק דשמן מכשיר הוא כדמוכח בפרק קמא דשבת (דף ה,ב) ובריש פרק חבית (שם קמד,א) – But he was not precise, for olive oil is מכשיר food to be מקבל טומאה as is evident in the first פרק of מסכת שבת and in the beginning of פרק חבית – דשמן חשיב משקה אלא דוקא מוהל² היוצא מתחילה: That regular olive oil is considered a liquid to be מכשיר, however it is only specifically the first liquid that oozes out from the olives, which is not considered משקה.

SUMMARY שמן is a משקה המכשיר however the initial מוהל is not מכשיר.

THINKING IT OVER

1. How can תוספות state that the ר"ח was (merely) 'לא דק', when seemingly he is completely incorrect, since שמן is one of the seven משקין which are מכשיר?!³
2. Why is there this difference between the מוהל which is not מכשיר, and the שמן which is מכשיר?!

footnotes: ¹ The rule is that for food to be מקבל טומאה they must first come into contact with certain liquids, otherwise even if they touch something טמא they are not מקבל טומאה. There are seven liquids which are מכשיר food to be מקבל טומאה, they are known with this acrostic, יין, דבש, שמן, חלב, טל, דם, מים (or י"ד שח"ט ד"ם). Fruit juices are not מכשיר אוכלין to be מקבל טומאה. ² Perhaps the ר"ח, when he said שמן, was referring to this מוהל. ³ See נחלת משה and footnote # 2..

רואין¹ כל שאילו ינטלו—We see; whenever if they would be removed

OVERVIEW The משנה stated if there was a basket full of straw sitting in the window; in order for it to be ממעט בחלון and be חוצץ בפני הטומאה, the straw must be able to stand on its own in the window without the basket. תוספות discusses the need for this requirement.

אין לפרש דטעם משום דסופו ליטול חבית וקופה² – We cannot explain that the reason we require that the straw be able to remain on its own without the basket, is because presumably they will remove the barrel (of figs) and the basket (of straw) – ולהכי בעינן שיהו גרוגרות ותבן יכולין לעמוד בפני עצמן – So therefore we require that the figs and the straw be able to stand there on their own – דאם כן למאי דפריך תבן הא קא חזי ליה ורוצה להוכיח מכאן דאפילו סופו ליטלו חוצץ – For if indeed that is the reason, so according to what the גמרא **asks; ‘**why is straw חוצץ; since he can use it’, and the גמרא intends to prove from the משנה here that even if eventually it will be taken away, nevertheless it is חוצץ, as we see by תבן. However if this is the sגמרא' intention – תיקשי ליה אמאי צריך שיכולין לעמוד בפני עצמן³ – The גמרא should have this difficulty; why is it necessary that they stay on their own – תוספות explains why there is the requirement that יכולין לעמוד בפני עצמן: אלא אומר רבינו יצחק דכך הוא הדין דכל דבר החוצץ בעינן שיוכל לעמוד בפני עצמו – Rather, says the ר"י, that this is the rule that in order that anything can be חוצץ, we require that it can stand on its own – דקתני לעיל מהך משנה⁴ במסכת אהלות (פרק ו' משנה ב') קוברי המת שהיו עוברין באכסדרה⁵ – For we learnt in the beginning of this משנה in מס' אהלות; ‘grave diggers who passing an אכסדרה – ובא אחד מהן והגיף את הדלת וסמכו במפתח – And one of them came and closed the door to the house and supported it with a key, the rule is – אם יכולה דלת לעמוד בפני עצמה טהור ואם לאו טמא – If the door can stand on its own without the support of the key, the house is טהור, but if not, the house is טמא’, and the משנה continues (as cited in our גמרא) – וכן חבית של גרוגרות וקופה של תבן שהן נתונין בחלון משמע דהכל חד טעמא הוא⁶ – ‘and similarly a barrel of figs and a basket of straw which are placed in a window, if they can stand on their own’, etc. it seems that the entire משנה is for the same reason – והיינו טעמא דסתימת עראי הוא⁷ דכיון שאינו יכול לעמוד בפני עצמו – And this is the reason for it is a temporary blockage, since it cannot stand on its own, it will eventually fall down that is not a proper סתימה – תוספות offers another explanation why we require that יכולין לעמוד בפני עצמו: אי נמי משום דבעינן דבר החוצץ עומד על ידי דבר שאינו מקבל טומאה⁸ – Or you may also say, because we require that the object which is חוצץ (the תבן or the דלת) should stand through something which is not מקבל טומאה – תוספות cites a differing view ומיהו בפירוש משניות מצא רבינו יצחק דמפרש אפילו במפתח שאינו מקבל טומאה איירי – However in one explanation of the משניות, the ר"י found that this פירוש explains that the rule of דלת that cannot stand on its own is even in a case where the מפתח is not מקבל טומאה – ומטמא⁹ דלא חשיב אהל לחוץ בפני הטומאה כיון שעמד על ידי כלי – (And the מת is מטמא the house) [And for this reason], because the דלת is not considered an אוהל to block the טומאה, since it is standing only through a כלי, the מפתח – אף על פי שאינו מקבל טומאה – Even though the מפחת is one that is not מקבל טומאה – ורבי אליעזר פליג עלה בתוספתא¹⁰ וקאמר דטהור כיון שהמפתח אינו מקבל טומאה – And ר"א argues on this משנה in the תוספתא and maintains that the house is טהור, since the מפתח is not מקבל טומאה – ואזלי לטעמייהו דפליגי במסכת אהלות (בפרק ו' משנה א') בנדבך שהוא נתון על גבי כלים – And they follow their opinions where they argue in מס' אהלות regarding a capstone which is placed on utensils – אפילו כלי גללים כלי אבנים כלי אדמה¹¹ דלרבי אליעזר נעשה אהל¹² לטהר – Even if they were dung utensils or earthenware utensils, where according to ר"א this נדבך becomes an אוהל to make it טהור – ולרבנן אינו נעשה אהל אלא כשהוא נתון על גבי אבנים: However according to the רבנן the נדבך will not become an אהל לטהר unless it is paced on stones, but not on any type of כלים.

SUMMARY A דבר החוצץ has to be able to stand on its own either because otherwise it is a סתימת ארעי, or because (if its support is a דבר המקבל טומאה) it cannot be חוצץ בפני הטומאה. Others maintain that even if the support is not מקבל טומאה but it is a כלי, anything that it supports cannot be חוצץ בפני הטומאה.

THINKING IT OVER

1. תוספות writes initially that the reason that it is not חוצץ cannot be because קופה will be removed.¹³ And then he explains that the reason is because it is a סתימת ארעי. What is the difference between סופו ליטול and סתימת ארעי?!
2. How can we explain this that כלי אבנים וכו' (which are not מקבל טומאה) are חוצץ בפני הטומאה, however a נדבך (which normally can be חוצץ) if it is placed on כלי אבנים cannot be חוצץ?!¹⁴

footnotes: ¹ Seemingly this תוספות should precede the previous תוס' ד"ה בתיבנא. ² Therefore since it will be removed it cannot be considered as if it is blocking the opening since it will be removed shortly. See ‘Thinking it over’ # 1. ³ The גמרא when asking תבן הא קא חזי ליה intends to proof that even if סופו ליטול it can still be חוצץ. If that is the case why is there a requirement that צריך לעמוד בפני עצמן if the reason for this requirement is that otherwise the חבית וקופה will be removed later, but we are now assuming (by asking תבן הא קא חזי ליה), that being taken away is not sufficient reason that it should not be חוצץ, so why does the משנה require that they should be יכולין לעמוד בפני עצמן! ⁴ The משנה quoted here קופה מלאה וכו', is the second part of the משנה, which begins with קוברי המת וכו'. ⁵ An אכסדרה is a type of porch which has a roof but no walls. The grave diggers were carrying the corpse underneath the אכסדרה which was adjacent to a house with an open door. If left open the טומאה would extend from the אכסדרה into the house. ⁶ Regarding the straw in the basket there is room to say that we are concerned for סופו ליטול the basket; however in the רישא of the דלת there is no such concern, rather it seems the issue is merely whether it is יכול לעמוד בפני עצמו or not; the same should apply to the סיפא of the משנה regarding תבן that it just depends on whether יכולין לעמוד. ⁷ See ‘Thinking it over’ # 1. ⁸ The קופה or the מפתח are מקבל טומאה and since the דבר החוצץ is there only because it is supported by a דבר המקבל טומאה so it is considered as if the דבר המקבל טומאה is חוצץ and we know that a דבר המקבל טומאה is not חוצץ בפני הטומאה. ⁹ A marginal note amends this to read ומטעמא (not ומטמא). ¹⁰ אהלות פ"ז ה"ב. ¹¹ כל גללים and כלי אבנים are not מקבל טומאה and nevertheless the רבנן maintain that since the נדבך is supported by כלים, it cannot be חוצץ בפני הטומאה. See ‘Thinking it over’ # 2. ¹² This means that it is חוצץ בפני הטומאה. ¹³ See footnote # 2. ¹⁴ See נחלת משה.

בתיבנא¹ סריא—By rotted straw

OVERVIEW The גמרא explained the משנה which stated that straw can be חוצץ (even though usually he will need the straw to a feed it to his cattle), is because we are discussing straw which has rotted away and is unsuitable to be used as cattle feed. תוספות at first challenges, and then explains this assumption

תוספות asks: תימה אכתי חזיא לבהמתו על ידי פירוך כדמוכח בפרק בתרא דשבת (דף קנה,ב) דאמרינן² – It is astounding! for even though the straw is rotten, nevertheless it is still fit for his cattle by crushing it, as is evident in the last פרק of מסכת שבת, where the גמרא states – תא שמע מפרכין את התבן כולי אלמא מיטרח באוכלא שרי³ ומשני בתיבנא סריא⁴ – ‘come and hear; “we crush the straw, etc.”; so it is apparent that it is permitted to toil in regards to food, and the גמרא answers, it is with rotted straw’ – תוספות answers:

And one can say; that here it is a case where it is so rotten that even going through any process of fixing, it will still not be fit for consumption.

SUMMARY Crushing rotten straw may make it fit if it is not extremely rotten.

THINKING IT OVER If the תבן in מסכת שבת is not as rotten as the תבן here; how come the גמרא calls them both (תיבנא) סריא?!⁵

footnotes: ¹ In our גמרות the text reads בסריא (not בתיבנא סריא). ² Previously, on the עמוד א' there, ר' יהודה maintains than one may make unfit food, fit for his cattle, but he may not improve on food which is already fit for his cattle. ³ Straw is proper feed and nevertheless the ברייתא allows one to crush it and improve it, this (seemingly) contradicts the view of ר"י (see footnote # 2). ⁴ Rotten straw is not fit to be used as feed unless it is crushed. We see that even rotted straw is fit for feed if it is crushed, so how can the גמרא say here that the תבנא סריא is not fit for feed, when, if it is crushed, it is fit for feed. So we should be concerned perhaps he will remove it, crush it , and feed it to his animals. ⁵ להעיר the גירסא in שבת is בתיבנא סריא, however here the גירסא is בסריא (see footnote # 1).