היא גופה תיחוץ—This itself should separate

OVERVIEW The גמרא cited a משנה regarding a barrel of pressed figs whether the figs can be חוצץ or not. The גמרא here is asking, ‘the barrel itself should be the חציצה (regardless of the figs)’. Our תוספות discusses whether indeed a barrel (which will be removed) can be considered a חציצה or not.

תוספות asks: ותימה היכי תיחוץ הא לא מבטל ליה התם¹ – And it is astounding! How can the barrel be חוצץ; since he is not nullifying it to remain there; he intends to remove it – תוספות answers: ותירץ רבינו יצחק בן רבינו מרדכי דכיון שהתריפו הגרוגרות² גם החבית נתקלקל ומבטלו – And the ריב"ם answered, since the figs became wormy, the barrel was also ruined, and he is מבטל the barrel to remain in the window as a מחיצה – תוספות asks:**** אבל קשה לרבינו יצחק דבפרק בתרא דשבת (דף קנז,א ושם) דאמר³ שפקקו את המאור בטפיח – However the ר"י has a difficulty, for the גמרא states in the last פרק of מסכת שבת that they plugged up the window with a flask, in order to prevent the טומאה from expanding to the other house. This concludes the citation of the גמרא there, תוספות continues with his question – כי פקקו מאי הוי הא לא מבטל ליה⁴ ואינו חוצץ – What does it matter that they plugged up the window with the טפיח, but they were not מבטל the טפיח to the window, so it is not חוצץ; what did they accomplish?! תוספות rejects a proposed solution: וליכא למימר דביטלו הטפיח דאם כן היה בונה בשבת – And we cannot answer that indeed they were מבטל the טפיח, and intended that it remain permanently in the window, for then it would be considered building on שבת, ⁵ which is prohibited מדאורייתא – תוספות answers: ונראה לרבינו תם ולרבינו יצחק דכלי חרס לא בעי ביטול – And it is the view of the ר"ת and the ר"י that by earthenware utensils we do not require ביטול in order that they should be חוצץ – אלא שפיר חוצץ אף על גב דלא מבטל ליה⁶ – Rather they are חוצץ properly, even though he was not מבטל them to the opening – תוספות anticipates a difficulty: והא דקתני לקמן⁷ דכלי חרס ממעט בחלון ופריך⁸ כלי חרס הא חזי ליה⁹ – And this which the ברייתא taught later that a כלי חרס diminishes the size of the opening of a window, and the גמרא asked, how can a כלי חרס be ממעט; it is fit for him to use it, so he is not מבטל it to the window – תוספות responds: התם מיירי בממעט חלון מכשיעור אבל אינו סותם כל החלון להכי בעי ביטול – There in the גמרא further, it is a case where the כלי חרס is (merely) diminishing the opening of the window to be less than the required שיעור, but the כלי חרס is not blocking out the entire window, therefore it requires ביטול in that specific case – אבל היכא דסותם כל החלון כי הכא דקתני חוצצין דמשמע דסותם לגמרי – However in a case where the כלי חרס is blocking the entire window, like the case here where the משנה states, ‘it blocks’ (חוצצין), which (the word חוצצין) indicates that it is closing it off completely – וכן ההוא דפקקו את המאור התם ודאי [לא] בעי ביטול בכלי חרס¹⁰ – And similarly in that case of plugging up the window, where (the word פקקו) also indicates that the טפיח (the כלי חרס) covered up the window entirely; in those cases ביטול is not required by a כלי חרס. תוספות adds another case where ביטול is not required: ועוד אמר הרב רבינו שמואל דכלי עץ נמי שאינו מקבל טומאה – And additionally, says הר"ר שמואל that wooden utensils which are not susceptible to become טמא – כגון העשוי לנחת¹¹ לא בעי ביטול – For instance those wooden utensils which are made to remain stationary (like a large closet), they also do not require ביטול, like כלי חרס –**** תוספות proves this (that כלי עץ העשוי לנחת does not require ביטול just like כלי חרס): דבפרק ב' דמגילה (דף כו,ב) גבי ההוא בי כנישתא דיהודאי – For in the second פרק of מסכת מגילה regarding that Jewish בית הכנסת – דהות פתיחא לההוא אינדרונא דהוה בה מיתנא ובעו כהני לצלויי בה – which opened to a room in which there was a corpse, and the כהנים wanted to pray there in the ביהכנ"ס, but were concerned that the טומאה from the room (which was opened to the ביהכנ"ס) would extend into the ביהכנ"ס; see the גמרא there until the part – עד דאמר¹² להו דלו תיבותא¹³ ואותבוה אבבא – where רבא told them, ‘take the תיבה (meaning the [wooden] ארון הקודש) and place it on the opening (block the door between the מת and the ביהכנ"ס). This concludes the citation from that גמרא. תוסספות continues – ואי צריך ביטול מאי מהני האי תיבה דמסתמא לא ביטלוה שם – And if even a כלי עץ העשוי לנחת requires ביטול in order to be חוצץ, of what avail was there of placing this תיבה in the doorway, since presumably they were not מבטל it to remain there – ועוד שלא היו יכולים לבטלה שהיה ספר תורה מונח בה ואסור לשנותה בדבר אחר – And additionally (not only that we presume that they were not מבטל it, but rather indeed**) they could not have been מבטל it, for there was a ספר תורה lying in** the תיבה, and therefore it is forbidden to change the usage of the תיבה (as an ארון הקודש) to something else (a מחיצה for טומאה) – דמעלין בקודש ולא מורידין: For the rule is that we may only elevate in קדושה items, but we cannot lower the level of קדושה. Therefore once it is an ארון קודש we cannot be מבטל it from its קדושה to serve another purpose.

SUMMARY כלי חרס do not require ביטול in order to be חוצץ, provided that they cover the entire opening.

THINKING IT OVER תוספות teaches us that a כלי חרס does not require ביטול if it closes up the entire opening. Firstly why is a כלי חרס different from any other object, and secondly if indeed it is different, what does it matter if it closes the entire opening or it is ממעט בשיעור; it should either always be חוצץ or never be חוצץ?!¹⁴

footnotes: ¹ In order for something to be considered as a barrier, it must have some permanence where it is standing; however here the barrel will be removed to be used for its intended usage, and will not remain in this window. ² See the גמרא on the previous עמוד ב'. ³ The case there that there were two neighboring houses with a common roof, and the window of the house, in which there was a מת, was open. Therefore the טומאה would have extended to the second house. In order to prevent it from happening, they closed up this window (which was used for light) with a flask, so the טומאה would not extend to the other house. ⁴ They would certainly remove the טפיח after they resolved the טומאה issue; how can it be חוצץ?! ⁵ Adding on to a building or repairing a building is (also) considered בונה, and here (if they were מבטל the טפיח to the window) they would be adding to the building. ⁶ תוספות source for this ruling is presumably from (our גמרא and) the גמרא in שבת regarding the טפיח (which is an earthenware jug). ⁷ Later on this עמוד. ⁸ Later on the עמוד ב'. ⁹ It is evident from that גמרא that even a כלי חרס requires ביטול, contrary to what תוספות just taught us! ¹⁰ Therefore in the case of the cited משנה (on יט,ב) and in the case of the טפיח (in מס' שבת), where the כלי חרס covered the entire opening, ביטול is not required; however in the case of the ברייתא (on כ,א) where the expression is ממעטין בחלון (meaning that it does not cover up the hole entirely), in that case, ביטול is required. ¹¹ כלי עץ are מקבל טומאה. However if they are large and are made to be stationary (like a closet), they are not מקבל טומאה. The גמרא in חגיגה כו,ב derives it from the פסוק in ויקרא (שמיני) יא,לב which states, וְכֹל אֲשֶׁר יִפֹּל עָלָיו מֵהֶם בְּמֹתָם יִטְמָא מִכָּל כְּלִי עֵץ אוֹ בֶגֶד אוֹ עוֹר אוֹ שָׂק וגו', that just as a שק (a sack) can be moved whether it is full or empty (that is the purpose of a sack to carry things) similarly כל עץ are מקבל טומאה only if they can be moved מלא וריקן, but not כלי עץ העשוי לנחת. ¹² The הגהות הב"ח amends this to read, עד אמר להו (instead of עד דאמר להו). ¹³ The תיבה (or ארון הקודש) was made of wood and it is a כלי עץ העשוי לנחת. ¹⁴ See קובץ שיעורים אות סט.

בחבית של מתכת—By a metal barrel

OVERVIEW The גמרא asked, why does the משנה say that the straw and figs (in a container) can be חוצץ only under certain conditions, the barrel itself should be חוצץ (regardless of the תבן וגרוגרות that it contains). The גמרא answered that it was a metal container, and since metal is מקבל טומאה, there is a rule that anything which is מקבל טומאה cannot be חוצץ בפני הטומאה. Our תוספות has some difficulty with this answer.

תוספות asks: הקשה רבינו תם דחבית גופה תביא טומאה לבית אחר¹ – The ר"ת asked that the metal barrel itself should convey the טומאה from the room where the corpse is to the other adjacent room – דעל ידי אהל נעשית המתכת כחלל² להיות אבי אבות הטומאה³ כדמוכח במסכת אהלות⁴ – Since through טומאת אהל the metal barrel becomes like the corpse, to be considered an אבי אבות הטומאה, as is evident in מסכת אהלות – והוי כחלל נמי לטמא אחרים באהל⁵ – And so the barrel is also considered as a corpse to be מטמא others through טומאת אהל – דכוליה קרא דוכל⁶ אשר יגע על פני השדה בחלל חרב וגומר – For the entire פסוק of ‘and anything which will touch, on the face of the field, the corpse killed by the sword, etc.’; this entre verse – דריש לה בנזיר פרק כהן גדול (דף נד,א ושם) לענין אהל⁷ – Is expounded in מסכת נזיר in פרק כ"ג regarding טומאת אהל. תוספות question is how can we establish the משנה that it was a metal barrel, for in that case the טומאה will surely be conveyed (through טומאת אהל) to the other בית! תוספות answers: ונראה לרבינו תם דהכא מיירי כגון שהגרוגרות בולטות חוץ לפי חבית כל סביבותיו – And it appears to the ר"ת that here it is a case where for instance the dried figs extend outside the barrel on all its sides ומכסות אותו לגמרי שאין נראה כלל⁸ – And they cover the barrel completely that the barrel itself cannot be seen at all – תוספות justifies this unusual explanation: ודייק רבינו תם מדנקט גרוגרות ולא נקט פירות – And the ר"ת inferred that the משנה is discussing this case (where the barrel was completely covered with the גרוגרות), since the משנה specified גרוגרות and did not instead merely mention fruits (were inside the barrel), the reason is – לפי שהם מדובקות יחד אע"פ שיוצאות חוץ לחבית אין נופלות⁹ – That since the גרוגרות stick together, so even if they extend outside the barrel, they do not fall down and can cover the barrel from the outside. תוספות supports this inference: וכי האי גוונא דייק בפרק חבית¹⁰ (שבת דף קמו,א) – And we find a similar instance of this type of inference in פרק חבית – תוספות offers an alternate solution to the initial question: ועוד אומר רבינו יצחק דהכא מיירי בשאין חבית יוצאה חוץ לכותל¹¹ – And furthermore answers the ר"י that here it is a case where the barrel does not extend outside the adjacent wall of the room**** where there is no מת – דהשתא דרך החלון לא יבא טומאה לבית – So now no טומאה can be conveyed to the adjacent room via the window opening –

For a ‘squished’ טומאה bursts upwards but does not extend sideways, since there is no opening of a טפח.

SUMMARY The metal barrel does not convey טומאה to the adjacent room (even though חרב הרי היא כחלל [even regarding אהל]), either because it is completely covered by the sticky dried figs, or because the barrel does not extend into the airspace of the adjacent room.

THINKING IT OVER

1. תוספות in the first answer writes that the figs covered the barrel entirely and therefore it is not מקבל טומאה presumably because it was not exposed to the טומאה.¹⁴ This rule that whatever is not exposed to the טומאה is not מקבל טומאה (the rule of צמיד פתיל) is only regarding to prevent the items which are טהור from becoming טמא, but there is no such rule regarding the item which it itself is טמא (like the barrel), so how can the figs prevent the barrel from being מטמא?!¹⁵
2. תוספות in the first answer explained the case of the figs; how will that explain the case with the straw (which is not sticky)?
3. According to תוספות second answer, why did the משנה mention גרוגרות and not פירות?¹⁶

footnotes: ¹ The barrel is in the opening between the two rooms (one in which there is the מת) and is exposed to the airspace of both rooms. The barrel becomes טמא because it is in the same airspace under the same roof as the מת. We are assuming that the barrel is not flush with the sides of the opening but rather extends somewhat into both rooms (the room with the מת and the adjoining room, which we wish to protect from טומאה). See נחלת משה. ² The פסוק (in במדבר [חקת] יט,טז) reads, וכל אשר יגע על פני השדה בחלל חרב; this is expounded (in פסחים יד,ב) to teach us that the metal חרב (sword), which killed and came in contact with the corpse, has the same level of טומאה as the חלל (corpse). This rule (according to תוס') applies even if the metal became טמא (not only by touching the מת, but even) by being in the same אהל as the מת, as the case is here by the metal barrel. ³ A מת is the highest (lowest) level of טומאה; it is the ‘grandfather’ of טומאה; anything which touches the מת (a person) becomes an אב הטומאה. A מת is the only טומאה which is מטמא באהל (except for a מצורע in certain cases). ⁴ פרק א' משנה ג'. ⁵ This barrel which became an אבי אבות הטומאה (since it is open to the airspace of the מת), should be able to be מטמא anything which is in the adjacent room (which has no מת), since the contents of this second room is open and is under the same אהל (airspace) as the barrel which is like a מת. See end of footnote # 1. ⁶ See footnote # 2. ⁷ תוספות maintains that the rule of חרב הרי היא כחלל (see footnote # 2) is not only regarding the טומאה which is conveyed through touching or carrying (מגע ומשא), but also regarding טומאת אהל that metal can become טמא and convey טומאה through טומאת אהל alone, even if there was no מגע ומשא with the מת or with the other objects. ⁸ Therefore since the entire barrel is covers with the גרוגרות, it is not exposed to the אהל המת, therefore it does not become an אבי אבות הטומאה and it cannot be מטמא באהל. See ‘Thinking it over’ #1 & 2. ⁹ The fact that the משנה chose to discuss this case with גרוגרות specifically is an indication that the barrel was covered with the dried (and sticky) figs. ¹⁰ The משנה there states that one may take a knife (or sword) and break open a barrel in order to eat the גרגורות inside. ר' אושעיא limited this ruling to case of גרוגרות which are pressed together so a knife is required to break them apart in order to eat them. Therefore, since one may take the knife to cut the גרוגרות, he may also move the knife to break open the barrel; otherwise it would be prohibited because the משנה follows the view of ר' נחמיה that אין כלי ניטל אלא לתשמיש המיוחד בו. The גמרא asked why establish the משנה according to ר"נ, say that the משנה follows the view of the רבנן that a כלי may always be moved even not for תשמיש המיוחד בו? The גמרא answered that since the משנה mentioned גרוגות that means that the knife is needed to cut the גרוגרות. עיי"ש. ¹¹ This answer assumes that the barrel does not protrude into the adjacent room (it may or may not protrude in the בית המת). This is different from our previous assumption, see footnote # 1. ¹² If there is a מת in a box (together with other objects [which are not touching the מת]); if the box contains airspace of a טפח above the מת, the roof of the box becomes an אהל and everything in the box is טמא, and anything on top of the box is טהור (for the אהל prevents the טומאה from going out). If however there is no פותח טפח, we say that the טומאה of the מת bursts upwards (בוקעת ועולה) so anything which is above the מת including anything which is on top of the box up to the sky and is directly over the מת, they are טמא, but there is no טומאת אהל for the items which are in the box (but not touching the מת). ¹³ The barrel (which became טמא because it was exposed to the airspace of the מת with a פותח טפח) is under the upper frame of the window and there is no פותח טפח (since the barrel fills the entire space of this opening), therefore the טומאה of this barrel shoots straight up going through the top of the window up till the sky, but it does not extend to the sides. [If the barrel extended into the adjacent room then it would have a פותח טפח above it (presumably the ceiling is at least higher by a טפח over the opening) then it would be מטמא באהל המת.] ¹⁴ See footnote # 8. ¹⁵ See נחלת משה. ¹⁶ See תורת חיים and פורת יוסף.

שעלו מאיליהן—That grew on their own

OVERVIEW The ברייתא teaches that grasses which grew on their own and covered the windows they (among other things) can reduce the opening of the window,¹ so that the טומאה will not extend through the window. תוספות reconciles our גמרא with seemingly contradictory גמרות.

תוספות asks: תימה היאך ממעטין הטפח הא תנן במסכת אהלות (פרק ח' משנה ה') – It is astounding! How can the grass diminish the טפח opening of the window, for the משנה in מסכת אהלות teaches – אלו לא מביאין² ולא חוצצין³ הזרעים והירקות המחוברין לקרקע – ‘These items cannot bring טומאה and cannot protect from טומאה; plants and vegetables which are attached to the ground – חוץ מן הירקות שמנו פירוש הנהו דמנו לעיל⁴ דמביאין וחוצצין – Except for the vegetables that have been enumerated’; meaning those vegetables that were enumerated previously, which can bring טומאה and protect from טומאה, which are – האירוס⁵ והקיסום וירקות חמור ודלעת יוונית – The iris and the ivy and a squirting cucumber, and a Greek gourd – ואם כן היכי קתני דעשבין שעלו מאליהן דחוצצין – So therefore the question is how can the ברייתא teach that (even attached) grasses which grew on their own can be חוצץ, when the משנה explicitly states that anything which is attached to the ground is not (מביא and not) חוצץ?! תוספות answers: ותירץ רבינו תם דהתם איירי לענין אהל דאין נעשין אהל לחוץ בפני הטומאה – And the ר"ת answered that there in the משנה we are discussing regarding an אהל, that attached plants cannot become an אהל to protect from טומאה – על מה שתחתיהם או שעליהם⁶ או להביא טומאה⁷ – On whatever is below them or above them, or that attached plants cannot bring the טומאה, the reason is – מפני שהרוח מנשבו ואינו עומד במקום אחד – Because the wind blows it about and it does not remain in one place – והוי דומיא דעוף הפורח שאינו לא חוצץ ולא מביא – So it is like a flying bird which is not חוצץ and not מביא; however here the function of the grass is not to be חוצץ on what is above or below the מת, but only to diminish the size of the opening, for that purpose even attached grass is sufficient – תוספות asks: הקשה רבינו יצחק דהכא בכולה שמעתין לא בעינן מירוח⁸ לא בעשבים ולא בחבית – The ר"י asked that in the entire גמרא here we do not require smearing, neither regarding grasses, nor regarding the barrel; we know this – דפריך לעיל היא גופה⁹ תיחוץ – For the גמרא previously asked, ‘it (the barrel) itself should be חוצץ’ – ובהגוזל קמא (בבא קמא דף קה,א) אמר רבא הרי חבית שניקבה וסתמוה שמרים הצילוה¹⁰ – However, רבא said in פרק הגוזל קמא, ‘a barrel which was pierced and the sediment closed it up, this closure by the שמרים saved the barrel from being מקבל טומאה, for the sediment seals the hole completely; if however – פקקה בזמורה עד שימרח מן הצדדין – He stuffed up the hole with a twig it is not considered sealed off, until he smears along the sides of the twig with mud or some paste so the seal will be tight. So why here do we not also require that it must be tightly sealed off?!¹¹ תוספות answers:

And one can say that there we require that it be surrounded by a צמיד פתיל,¹³ therefore smearing is required, however here (to diminish the size of the opening)¹⁴ we do not require a צמיד פתיל.

SUMMARY Attached plants cannot be an אהל (to bring or protect from טומאה), however they are effective in diminishing the size of an opening. A צמיד פתיל is required to save from טומאת אהל; however it is unnecessary when diminishing the טפח size of an opening.

THINKING IT OVER

1. How can we understand the difference between the הוה אמינא of תוספות first question (regarding מחובר לקרקע) and תוספות answer?¹⁵
2. How are we to understand תוספות second question (regarding מירוח);¹⁶ it is obvious that concerning diminishing the size of a טפח we do not need to close off the entire טפח just to make the opening less than a טפח, so what is תוספות question?!¹⁷

footnotes: ¹ In order to transmit טומאה from a room to outside the room we require that the opening of the window be a פותח טפח (a square טפח); these grasses cover part of the window (which was a פותח טפח), so that now since there is less than a פותח טפח, the טומאה cannot extend through this opening. ² לא מביאין [את הטומאה] means that if there is an attached plant which is covering a corpse and utensils, the plant is not considered to be an אהל and does not bring the טומאה from the מת to the utensils. If however the plant would not be attached to the ground it would be considered an אהל, and the כלים would become טמא. ³ לא חוצצין [בפני הטומאה] means if there is a מת and the attached ירקות are covering the מת and there are כלים on top of the ירקות, the ירקות do not protect the utensils, and the כלים become טמא since they are מאהיל on the מת. If however the ירקות were detached (and there was a פותח טפח between the מת and the detached ירקות), anything on top of the ירקות would remain טהור, for the ירקות would be חוצץ. ⁴ שם משנה א'. ⁵ The translator is indebted to Sefaria for the translations on this line. ⁶ See footnote # 3. ⁷ See footnote # 2. ⁸ This means smearing a type of sealant to make sure the closure is tight. ⁹ The גמרא asks that the barrel by itself (without anything else) should be חוצץ. We know that it is highly unlikely (almost impossible) that the barrel fills up the entire window, without leaving over some open spaces; nevertheless the גמרא feels that this is sufficient and no smearing of a sealant is required. ¹⁰ At the conclusion of the תוספות it will become clear what this saving means. ¹¹ See ‘Thinking it over’ # 2. ¹² The הגהות הב"ח amends this to read, התם בעינן (instead of התם בכלי בעינן). ¹³ The פסוק is במדבר (חקת) יט,טו states regarding vessels that are found in the אהל המת that וְכֹל כְּלִי פָתוּחַ אֲשֶׁר אֵין צָמִיד פָּתִיל עָלָיו טָמֵא הוּא. In order for the כלים or their contents not to become טמא they need to be covered tightly (צמיד פתיל, means tightly covered). The גמרא in ב"ק is regarding saving the wine in the barrel; for that the barrel must be tightly closed whether by the sediments or with a twig plugging the hole provided that it is smeared properly so that it is tightly closed. ¹⁴ In our case we are not discussing saving the contents of the barrel from becoming טמא, rather we are using the barrel to diminish the size of the opening to less than a טפח so once that is accomplished by the barrel; we have no concern for the slight opening which is less than a טפח. See מהרש"א in footnote # 17 and נחלת משה for a clearer explanation. ¹⁵ See תפארת ישראל in the משנה in אהלות (פ"ח מ"ה), and נחלת משה. ¹⁶ See footnote # 11. ¹⁷ See מהרש"א.

ועוף ששכן בחלון—And a bird that rested in the window

OVERVIEW The ברייתא included a bird which settled in the window, as one of the items that are ממעט בחלון to be חוצץ בפני הטומאה. Our תוספות broadens this concept.

נראה דאתי אפילו לרבי מאיר דאמר (עירובין דף טו,ב) – It appears to תוספות that this ruling of עוף ששכן בחלון is חוצץ, is even according to ר"מ who maintains elsewhere – כל דבר שיש בו רוח חיים אין עושין אותו לא דופן לסוכה¹ ולא לחי למבוי² כולי³ – That anything which is alive cannot be used neither as a wall for a סוכה, nor as a slat for a מבוי, etc., nonetheless ר"מ can agree to the ruling here, for his ruling there – דהיינו לענין מחיצת עשרה טפחים דוקא⁴ – Is only regarding using a living thing as a מחיצה which needs to be ten טפחים – אבל הכא לענין ממעט בחלון ממעטו בכל דבר⁵ שיבטלנו: However here regarding diminishing the opening of a window, he can diminish is with anything which he is מבטל to the window.****

SUMMARY ר"מ disallows using a living animal as a wall which requires ten טפחים, but allows using a living animal to reduce the size of an opening to be חוצץ on the טומאה.

THINKING IT OVER

1. Would ר"מ permit using an animal for a מחיצה י' if the animal is tied up so that it cannot move?
2. Is there an inherent difference between the requirement for a מחיצה י', and the requirement to be ממעט בחלון?

footnotes: ¹ For instance one may not use a cow for one of the סוכה walls (even though it has the proper dimensions). ² In order to be able to carry in a (closed) alleyway (מבוי) which is open on one side to a רה"ר, a slat (or לחי) needs to be placed inside the מבוי, near where the מבוי opens to the רה"ר. ³ Therefore from that גמרא it seems that a מחיצה cannot be made from anything which is alive (for presumably since it is alive and moves, it cannot be considered a מחיצה which requires קביעות); it follows then that this bird cannot be used as a מחיצה to diminish the size of the window opening to less than a טפח (since it is not considered קבוע). ⁴ The wall of a סוכה and לחי are required to be ten טפחים high; therefore the animal may crouch or move so there will no longer be a מחיצה of ten טפחים. ⁵ The גמרא later establishes the case of a צפור that it is tied up and cannot fly away, so even though it may move, but it will always remain there and diminish the size of the opening. וצ"ע. See ‘Thinking it over’.

ועובד כוכבים שישב בחלון—And a Gentile who sat in the window

OVERVIEW The ברייתא includes a נכרי among those items which can be ממעט בחלון. Our תוספות discusses why a נכרי should not be considered a דבר המקבל טומאה, and therefore should not be חוצץ בפני הטומאה.

דעובד כוכבים אינו מקבל טומאה¹ כדנפקא לן מקרא בפרק בתרא דנזיר (דף סא,א ושם) – A נכרי is not מקבל טומאה as we derive it from a פסוק in the last פרק of מסכת נזיר – דכתיב² ואיש אשר יטמא וגומר מתוך הקהל יצא עובד כוכבים שאין לו קהל – For it is written, ‘and a man who is טמא etc., and he will be cut off from within the congregation’; this excludes a נכרי, for he has no קהל, so he is not מקבל טומאה – תוספות responds to an anticipated difficulty: ואף על גב דחכמים עשאום כזבים לכל דבריהם³ (שבת דף פג,א נדה דף לד,א) – And even though the חכמים consider the נכרים as זבים regarding all matters, nevertheless – כיון דמדאורייתא לא מקבלי טומאה⁴ חוצצין מפני הטומאה – Since מן התורה the נכרים are not מקבל טומאה they can be חוצץ בפני הטומאה. תוספות asks: ואם תאמר דבפרק יוצא דופן (נדה דף מג,ב) אמר חומר בשרץ⁵ מבשכבת זרע⁶ – And if you will say; that in פרק יוצא דופן the ברייתא states, ‘there is a greater severity by a שרץ than by שכבת זרע – שהשרץ אין לו חלוקת טומאה ומסיק שכבת זרע דחלוקה טומאה מה היא – For by a שרץ there are no differences in its טומאה, however by ש"ז there is a difference in its טומאה’. And the גמרא there concludes, ‘what is this difference in the טומאה of ש"ז – אילימא בין ישראלים לנכרים הכא נמי הא איכא עכבר דים ועכבר דיבשה – If you mean to say that there is a difference between the ש"ז of ישראלים (which are מטמא), and the ש"ז of נכרים (which are not מטמא), but there is also here by a שרץ a difference between a sea mouse (which is not טמא) and a land mouse (which is טמא) ⁷ – משמע⁸ דשרץ אין חלוקה טומאתו בין ישראל לנכרי – This indicates that regarding a שרץ there is no difference in its טומאה, whether it touched a ישראל or a נכרי, which contradicts what תוספות said previously that a נכרי is not מקבל טומאה – תוספות responds: לאו פירכא היא דאף על גב דאין עובדי כוכבים טמאים בשרץ This is no challenge; for even though that נכרים are not מטמא בשרץ, nevertheless the גמרא could not have used this as a difference by שרץ (that it is only מטמא a ישראל but not a נכרי), for if that would be the difference – אין לו חלוקת טומאה דומיא דשכבת זרע – The חלוקת טומאה by a שרץ would not be similar to the חלוקת טומאה by ש"ז – דבשכבת זרע גופה איכא חילוק אבל בשרץ גופיה אין חילוק – Because by ש"ז the חילוק is in the טומאה itself (the ש"ז of a ישראל is מטמא, but not the ש"ז of a נכרי), however by the שרץ itself there is no חילוק – אלא בהנהו דמקבלי ממנו טומאה⁹ – Rather the חילוק is only concerning those that receive טומאה from it – הילכך צריך למינקט עכבר דים ועכבר דיבשה¹⁰ – Therefore it was necessary for the גמרא to mention the difference between a sea mouse (which is a שרץ that is not מטמא) and a land mouse (which is a שרץ that is מטמא). תוספות responds to an anticipated difficulty: והא דאיצטריך מיעוטא¹¹ (שבת פג,א נדה לד,א) דעובד כוכבים אינו מטמא בזיבה¹² – And the reason we require another exclusion to teach us that a נכרי is not מטמא בזיבה (even though we already have the מיעוט from מתוך הקהל)¹³; the reason we need this פסוק also – משום דטומאת זיבה לאו טומאת מגע היא ומטומאה זו לא אשכחן דאימעטו¹⁴ – Is because טומאת זיבה is not a טומאה which one contracts by coming in contact with something else, rather it is a טומאה which issues from one’s own body, and from this type of טומאה we do not find elsewhere that the נכרים were excluded – תוספות continues to explain the next case in the ברייתא:

And a baby born in the eighth month cannot be מקבל טומאה while it is still alive, for he is not considered a man.

SUMMARY A נכרי is not מקבל טומאה מה"ת, and therefore he can be חוצץ בפני הטומאה even though that מדרבנן he is considered a זב. A בן שמונה is neither totally alive nor totally dead. Therefore he is not מקבל טומאה.

THINKING IT OVER What is the status of a בן שמונה; if he is not considered alive, he should be מקבל טומאה like any animal which can be מקבל טומאה after it dies, and if he is considered alive why is he not considered to be a person; what other kind of living thing is he considered to be?!

footnotes: ¹ See ‘Overview’; therefore since he is not מקבל טומאה he can be חוצץ בפני הטומאה. ² The פסוק in במדבר (חקת) יט,כ reads,וְאִישׁ אֲשֶׁר יִטְמָא וְלֹא יִתְחַטָּא וְנִכְרְתָה הַנֶּפֶשׁ הַהִוא מִתּוֹךְ הַקָּהָל. ³ They are therefore (not only מקבל טומאה, but also) actually טמא, and something which is טמא can certainly not be חוצץ בפני הטומאה, so how can the נכרי be ממעט בחלון?! ⁴ They are זבים only מדרבנן, however מדאורייתא not only are they טהור, they cannot even be מקבל טומאה, like any living thing (besides a ישראל). ⁵ A שרץ is any one of the eight vermin mention in פרשת שמיני which are מטמא when they are dead. ⁶ שכבת זרע is semen. ⁷ The גמרא there is asking how can you say there is no difference by טומאת שרץ, only by טומאת ש"ז, but we see that just as there is a חלוקה by ש"ז (between ישראל and נכרי) there is a חלוקה by שרץ (between ים and יבשה). ⁸ The obvious question here is why did the גמרא choose to use a different חלוקה by שרץ (of ים ויבשה) and not the same חלוקה which we assume by ש"ז (namely between ישראל ונכרי). The גמרא should have said we have the same difference by שרץ that it is מטמא a ישראל and not a נכרי. The fact the גמרא did not use this חלוקה shows that there indeed is no difference and a שרץ is מטמא a נכרי just as it is מטמא a ישראל, and therefore the גמרא had to choose a different חלוקה (between ים ויבשה). This contradicts all that has been said till now that a נכרי is not מקבל טומאה. ⁹ When the גמרא asked that just as there is a חילוק טומאה by ש"ז (between a ישראל and a נכרי) so too there is a חילוק טומאה by a ישראל, the גמרא could not have said that the חילוק by שרץ is that the ישראל is מקבל טומאה from the שרץ, while the נכרי is not מקבל טומאה from the שרץ (even though that it is true), since the חילוק is not the same; by ש"ז we are making a difference which type of ש"ז is מטמא (only from a ישראל, but not from a נכרי); however by שרץ we are not offering a difference which שרץ is מטמא and which not; rather the only difference is what is the same שרץ מטמא (he is מטמא a ישראל but not a נכרי); there is no a difference in the שרץ itself! ¹⁰ Now the חילוק is the same by שרץ as it is by ש"ז; namely that there are certain שרצים who are מטמא and others who are not, just as there is a certain type of ש"ז that is מטמא and another which is not. ¹¹ The תורה [in ויקרא (מצורע) טו,ב] writes, דַּבְּרוּ אֶל בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל וַאֲמַרְתֶּם אֲלֵהֶם אִישׁ אִישׁ כִּי יִהְיֶה זָב מִבְּשָׂרוֹ זוֹבוֹ טָמֵא הוּא. We expound this פסוק to mean that only בנ"י are מטמאים בזיבה but not נכרים. ¹² This means that if a נכרי experiences a discharge of זיבה, he is not טמא מה"ת. ¹³ See footnote # 2. ¹⁴ We derived from 'מתוך הקהל' (see footnote # 2) that they are not מקבל טומאה from being in contact with a מת (which we consider to be like a טומאת מגע), however this would not teach us that he is also excluded from טומאת זיבה, which is a טומאה היוצאת עליו מגופו. Therefore we need this additional פסוק by טומאת זיבה. ¹⁵ A בן שמונה is a baby that was born in the eighth month of pregnancy. It is not deemed to be a viable child (in those days). The ברייתא teaches that it too can be ממעט בחלון, for it is not מקבל טומאה as תוספות explains. ¹⁶ No live thing can be מקבל טומאה, except for a person; this בן שמונה is not considered a person since it is not viable.

And the salt—והמלח

OVERVIEW The ברייתא includes salt among the items that can be ממעט the שיעור of a פותח טפח, to prevent the טומאה from expanding into the adjoining room, but not snow.

משמע מהכא דאין מלח מקבל טומאה1- It seems from the ברייתא here that salt is not מקבל טומאה - אבל2 השלג מיירי שלא חישב עליו לאכילה דלא מקבל טומאה- Howeverregarding the snow (which the ברייתא states is not ממעט), it is in a case where he did not plan to eat it, sothereforeit is not מקבל טומאה - דאי חשב עליו תיפוק ליה 3 דהוי דבר המקבל טומאה כדמוכח במסכת נדה [דף יז,א ועיין שם– For if he plannedon eating the snow**, it would be excluded** from being חוצץ on account that it is something which can become טמא as is evident in מס' נדה– The addendum here attempts to resolve a difficulty וצריך עיון גדול4, ואולי צריך לומר אבל השלג מיירי שלא חישב עליו למשקה דלא מקבל טומאה וכולי – These words of תוספות require much contemplation. But perhaps תוספות needs to be amended and read; however regarding the snow it is in a case where he did not plan on it for drink, so therefore it is not מקבל טומאה, etc. -

And according to this emendation the words of תוספות will be properly understood. SUMMARY Salt is not מקבל טומאה. He had no intention of (eating) [drinking] the snow.

THINKING IT OVER תוספות writes that it seems ((משמע from our גמרא that salt is not טומאה מקבל.5 Why does תוספות write משמע when it is evident (מוכח) from our גמרא that salt is not מקבל טומאה?!

כולן אין ממעטין בחלון—All of them do not diminish by a window

OVERVIEW The משנה mentions that snow, hail, frost and ice, do not diminish an opening of a פותח טפח in a window and cannot prevent the טומאה to expand outward.

וטעמא משום דאין מתקיימין ונימסין¹² במים³⁴ – And the reason they are not ממעט is because they do not last, for they melt ([like] water) – תוספות negates an alternate explanation: דליכא למימר דטעמא משום דקשו לכותל ושקיל להו – For we cannot say that the reason (they are not ממעט) is because since they are harmful to the wall, so he will remove them; they are not permanent; this cannot be the reason – דהא מלח נמי קשה לכותל וקתני דממעט – For salt is also harmful for the wall and the ברייתא states that it is ממעט; the explanation is – ומיירי⁵⁶ כגון דמנחי בחספא והנך נמי ליתני דממעטי ודמנחי בחספא – That it is in a case where the salt is lying on a potsherd, so it is not damaging the wall, and so therefore (if we assume that the reason snow, etc. is not ממעט, is because they are harmful) regarding also these (snow, etc.) let the ברייתא state that they are ממעט and they are lying on a חרס (just like מלח) – אלא אפילו דמנחי בחספא דלא קשו לכותל לא ממעטי: Rather since the ברייתא did not say it this way, it proves that (regarding snow, etc.) even if they were lying on a חספא so they are not harmful to the wall, nevertheless they are not ממעט, since they will melt and not last.

SUMMARY Snow is not ממעט because it will melt, but not because it damages the wall.

THINKING IT OVER Why is it that important what the reason is that snow is not ממעט?

footnotes: ² The הגהות הב"ח amends this to read ונימוסין דליכא (deleting the word במים). See footnote # 2. ⁴ The רש"ש amends this to read כמים (instead of במים). See footnote # 1. ⁶ See later in the גמרא. We need to assume that it is מנחי בחספא, because otherwise why is the salt ממעט, since it damages the wall, the owner will surely remove it, so it is not a דבר המתקיים.

חזי לקריעה דלבושא—It is fit for a tear in a garment

OVERVIEW The ברייתא stated that מטלניות (rags) which are smaller than three אצבעות by three אצבעות are ממעט בחלון. The גמרא asked; these rags are fit to be used as a patch for a torn garment, so the owner may take it away from the window; why is it ממעט? Our תוספות reconciles our גמרא with seemingly contradictory גמרות.

תוספות anticipates a difficulty: ואף על גב דאמר בפרק קמא דסוכה (דף טז,א ושם) ובשבת פרק כל הכלים (דף קכה,א) – And even though the גמרא states in the first פרק of מסכת סוכה and in מסכת שבת in פרק כל הכלים – דפחות משלש על שלש לא חזי לא לעניים ולא לעשירים¹ – That material which is smaller than three אצבעות by three אצבעות is not fit neither for poor nor rich people, and therefore are not מקבל טומאה – תוספות responds: ודאי לא מקבל טומאה כיון דלא מצנעו ליה – That is certain that פחות מג' על ג' is not מקבל טומאה, since people do not store it (for generally it has no significant use) –

However it is nevertheless not ממעט, because he does not nullify it completely (and rid himself from it), rather he takes this מטלניות when he needs it to repair a tear in his garment.

SUMMARY פחות מגע"ג is not significant to be considered a בגד (so it’s not מקבל טומאה), but people keep them to use for a patch (so it cannot be ממעט).

THINKING IT OVER How did תוספות reconcile that לא חזי לא לעניים ולא לעשירים, with חזי לקריעה דלבושא?

footnotes: ¹ However our גמרא is asking that מטלניות which are less than ג' על ג' are fit to be used as a patch! ² It is not significant enough that it should be considered a garment in order to be מקבל טומאה as a garment; on the other hand he keeps these scraps of material around, should he need them for a patch. Therefore it cannot be ממעט, since he may remove it for a patch. ³ A marginal note amends this to read 'מצטרך' (instead of מצטרף).

כיון דאיכא צער בעלי חיים כולי—Since there is suffering for an animal, etc.

OVERVIEW The ברייתא taught that an אבר ובשר המדולדלין (a dangling limb or flesh) from an animal are ממעט בחלון. The גמרא asked but perhaps he will cut off this אבר המדולדל and throw it to the dogs (so it won’t remain in the חלון)? The גמרא answered that since this (cutting it off) will cause the animal pain we assume that he will not do it. Therefore he is מבטל this אבר to the חלון and it is ממעט. Our תוספות clarifies this reasoning.

תוספות asks: ואם תאמר כולה בהמה שקיל ושדי לכלבים¹ – And if you will say; he will take the entire animal and throw it do the dogs (after he will kill it), so he is not מבטל the בהמה and the אבר to the חלון, so why is it ממעט?! תוספות answers: ויש לומר דמיירי בקוף וכל דדמי ליה דמנח התם לטיולי ביה² – And one can say we are discussing a monkey or something similar to a monkey, which he placed there by the window for his pleasure (enjoyment) – וניחא דנקט אבר ובשר ולא נקט בהמה גופה³ – So now it is understood why the ברייתא mentioned a limb or flesh (that is dangling), but did not mention an actual animal – דאי חזיא לטיולי שקיל לה לטיולי בה ואי לא חזיא⁴ שדי לה לכלבים: For if it is usable for his enjoyment, he will remove it from the window to entertain himself with the animal, and if it is useless for enjoyment he will throw it to the dogs (since it has no other use).

SUMMARY One would not be מבטל an unfit to eat (non-kosher) animal to the חלון; he will either use it for amusement (if possible) or throw it to the dogs; however he will be מבטל the אבר המדולדל of this animal to the חלון if the animal can entertain him.

THINKING IT OVER The notion, that this ברייתא is discussing a monkey that he wishes to play with, seems a little far-fetched and the ברייתא certainly does not state this (explicitly). How did תוספות derive this?

footnotes: ¹ The גמרא already established that we are discussing a non-kosher skinny animal that he has no other use for, so he will certainly kill it (no צער בע"ח there) and give it to the dogs. In any event he is not מבטל the אבר to the חלון. ² Therefore he will certainly not kill it, and he will also not sever the אבר המדולדל because of צער בע"ח. Here לטיולי בה does not mean he will take if for a walk, but rather entertain himself there next to the אבר המדולדל. ³ We established that the animal was tied (and cannot move) and that it was not fit to be eaten, so why discuss the אבר המדולדל, when we can discuss that he placed the animal in the window! ⁴ Therefore the ברייתא states that only the אבר המדולדל was actually in the window and the animal (monkey) was nearby, so he can still play with the animal (and will not throw it to the dogs), and will be מבטל the אבר to the חלון.

אתיא אמיה ודריא ליה בשבת—The mother will come and take him away; it was on Shabbos

OVERVIEW The ברייתא included a בן שמונה as one of the items which are ממעט בחלון. The גמרא asked, how can it be ממעט, since the mother will remove the infant, The גמרא answered that it was on a שבת, where a בן שמונה is מוקצה so the mother will not move him. תוספות completes the sגמרא' answer.¹

And we are discussing an infant who is a גוסס (about to die), who will die before שבת is out, and they intend that his burial should be there in the חלון, therefore he will never be removed, that is why he can be ממעט בחלון.

SUMMARY The בן שמונה was a גוסס, who will die during שבת, and will be buried [left] there in the חלון, therefore he is ממעט.

THINKING IT OVER If they intend to bury him there (permanently), why is it necessary to emphasize that he will die before שבת; what difference is there when he will die, since they intend to leave him there?!

footnotes: ¹ The obvious question is that the mother will remove him after שבת, so it is not a קביעות, how can he be ממעט?! ² See ‘Thinking it over’. ³ See רש"ש that תוס' maintains that a נפל does not require burial (in the ground).