דלית בה שיעורא—For it does not have the required amount

OVERVIEW The ברייתא included salt as one of the items which are ממעט בחלון. The גמרא asked, but salt is harmful to the wall (window sill) so he will remove it. The גמרא answered that the salt was resting on a potsherd. The גמרא asked, so the חספא can be חוצץ (without the salt). The גמרא answered that it did not have the proper שיעור. In our text the גמרא continues כדתנן חרס כדי ליתן בין פצים לחבירו.¹ Our תוספות offers an alternate גירסא.

פירוש² דאין שיעור לחספא למעט מפותח טפח – The explanation of דלית ביה שיעורא is that there is not sufficient חספא to make the opening less than a square טפח – ולא גרסינן כדתנן³ דמה ענין זה לשיעורי שבת אלא וכדתנן בוי"ו – And so therefore the text does not read 'כדתנן', for what connection is there between the issue here (regarding חציצה) to the measurements for חיובי שבת, rather the גירסא is 'וכדתנן' with a 'וי"ו' (before כדתנן) – והכי פירושו⁴ ואמאי מלח ממעט – And this is the explanation of (the flow in) the גמרא; but why is salt ממעט – הא כי שקיל חספא כשיצטרך לו יסיר גם המלח כדי שלא יזיק את הכותל⁵ – Since when he will need the חספא and remove it, he will also remove the salt so it should not harm the wall – ואהא מייתי וכדתנן⁶ כלומר דמיירי נמי דלית ביה כדי ליתן בין פצים לחבירו – And in order to answer this implicit question, the גמרא cites this משנה saying 'וכדתנן', meaning, that our case in the ברייתא is also discussing a case where the חספא is not large enough to place between one post and the other – דאין ראוי לכלום ולא שקיל ליה⁷ – So since this חספא is not fit for anything, therefore he will not remove it – תוספות offers an alternate גירסא thereby justifying the גירסא of 'כדתנן': ואית ספרים דלא גרסי חספא גופיה תיחוץ אלא גרסינן ותיפוק ליה משום חספא – And there are some text, which do not read 'חספא גופיה תיחוץ', rather they read, 'ותיפוק ליה משום חספא' – כלומר ותיפוק ליה שיסיר המלח כשיסיר חספא⁸ – This means that you can know that he will remove the salt when he removes the חספא, so how can the salt be ממעט if eventually it will be removed when he needs the חספא –

And on this explicit question the גמרא answered that it doesn’t have the sufficient size, as we learnt, etc. and therefore he will not remove it.

SUMMARY The חספא is not ממעט, since it is so small that (without the מלח) the opening will still be more than a פותח טפח.

THINKING IT OVER Is it more logical that the גמרא asks that the חספא should be חוצץ (as our גירסא has it), or that the גמרא asks, how can the מלח on the חספא be ממעט, since he will remove the חספא (the גירסא of the אית ספרים); which is the more obvious question?

footnotes: ¹ That משנה is discussing the שיעור required to be חייב for carrying out a חספא on שבת to (from) a רה"ר. In those days when they wanted to open a window in a wall, they made the window frame by placing vertically two parallel boards at a specific distance from each other and then fill the space between them (on top and on bottom) with a חספא. The size of this חספא is the minimum size required to be חייב for carrying a חספא on שבת. Anything smaller is insignificant for a חספא. ² By saying 'פירוש' our תוספות is negating the explanation (of רש"י בד"ה דלית) that לית ביה שיעורא means that the חספא per se is too small and so cannot be considered a חציצה. This is not true, for the size of the דבר החוצץ is irrelevant; what is important is that it is large enough that when it is placed in the window, the part remaining open is less than a פותח טפח. ³ If the explanation of דלית ביה שיעורא would be like the explanation תוספות rejected (in footnote # 2), then the גירסא of 'כדתנן' would be correct; we are saying that just like for שבת there is a שיעור לחיוב הוצאה, that same שיעור applies to חציצה בפני הטומאה. However תוספות rejected this פירוש, for there is no connection between שיעור להוצאה and the שיעור of חציצה, therefore the term כדתנן is inappropriate for it suggests that the two cases (שבת and חציצה) have the same שיעור (when in fact there is no real שיעור for the דבר החוצץ per se). ⁴ תוספות is explaining why we cite the משנה regarding a חספא on שבת, since it has no intrinsic connection to our case. ⁵ This is an implicit question which we are to ask on our own. The 'וכדתנן' is answering this implicit question. ⁶ The 'וכדתנן' does not explain the meaning of לית ביה שיעורא (which is as תוספות explained it), rather the גמרא cited the 'וכדתנן' to answer the implicit question that he will remove the חספא (and the מלח) so how can it be ממעט?! ⁷ כדתנן means we are proving something, which makes sense according to the rejected פי' (in footnote # 2) that we are trying to prove the שיעור of a חספא. However 'וכדתנן' means that the fact in this case is similar to the facts in the other case, but we’re not trying to prove anything. ⁸ According to this גירסא the גמרא is explicitly asking the implicit question we mentioned before (in footnote # 5), however the גמרא never asked (according to this גירסא) that חספא גופיה תיחוץ. ⁹ Anything smaller than בין פצים לפצים is never used, so he has no need for it. The משנה is a direct answer to a direct question; therefore it can state כדתנן (without a preceding וי"ו).

ושל חמור שלש מן האיצטרובלא—And by a donkey three from the base

OVERVIEW The גמרא cited a ברייתא which teaches how much one must distance a mill של חמור from the neighbor’s wall. רש"י seems to interpret 'ושל חמור' literally that it is driven by a donkey. תוספות offers alternate explanations.

פירוש רבינו חננאל דבשל חמור ליכא טיריא דאין חמור טוחן בה – The ר"ח explained that by a mill of a חמור there are no vibrations, for there is no donkey which is doing the grinding in this mill – אלא חמור קורא לבנין העצים הנושאים את הריחים¹ – Rather the word חמור is referring to the wooden structure which supports the mill; תוספות offers some examples that חמור refers to a supporting structure – כמו שמצינו דעצים הנושאים נקראים חמור כמו העץ שהמטה מוטלת עליו – Just as we find that wood which supports are called חמור, for instance the wood upon which a bed is placed – כדתנן (כלים פרק י"ח משנה ג') נקליטי המטה וחמור² טהורים – As the משנה teaches, the headboards of a bed and the חמור (base of the bed) are טהורים – וכן העץ הסובל שידה תיבה ומגדל נקרא חמור – And similarly the wood which supports a chest or a box or a closet is also called חמור – דתנן³ חמור שתחת המלבן וספסלים שתחת הרגלים טהור – As was taught, the חמור which is under the frame and the benches under the legs are טהור – וכן עץ⁴ שהנפח סומך עליו נקרא חמור דתנן (שם פרק י"ד משנה ג') חמור של נפחים טמאים⁵ – And similarly the wood upon which the [bellows of the] smith is supported, is called חמור, as the משנה teaches, the חמור of smiths are טמא – וכן הריחים הבנין עשוי כמין כסא ועליה ריחים וזהו איצטרובל – So similarly regarding the mill; the housing is made like a chair and on it is the mill and the lower part of the mill which is on the chair is called איצטרובל – ואדם יושב כנגדן במקום גבוה ורגליו מרווחת⁶ למטה ומסבב הגלגל ברגליו וטוחן – And a person sits facing it on a high place and his legs are stretched out below him and he turns the wheel with his feet and this is how it grinds – ולית ביה טיריא⁷ אלא קול בעלמא – And in this mill there are no vibrations, just merely some noise – אבל בריחים שאדם טוחן בידיו או בגופו אית ביה נדנוד והיא טיריא – However by a mill which a person grinds with his hand or body, there are vibrations and these vibrations are called טיריא – תוספות presents a differing view: ולרבינו יצחק נראה דשל חמור נמי טוחן ביד אלא כשהוא⁸ על גבי בנין – And it appears to the ר"י that in a mill של חמור, the person also grinds with his hand (not with his feet), but the mill is on a structure – כדתנן במסכת זבים בפרק רביעי⁹ חמור של ריחים ושל יד – As the משנה taught in the fourth פרק of מסכת זבים, a חמור of a hand mill – תוספות anticipates a difficulty: והא דתניא בתוספתא בפרק קמא דמכילתין¹⁰ מרחיקין הריחים של יד – And this which we learnt in the תוספתא of the first פרק of our מסכת, ‘we distance a hand mill from the neighbor’s wall – שלשה מן השכב שהן ארבע מן הרכב ושל חמור שלשה מן האיצטרובל שהן ארבע מן הקלת – Three טפחים from the lower stone which is four טפחים from the upper stone, and we distance a mill of a חמור three from the איצטרובל which is four from the קלח’; this indicates that there are two types of ריחיים, one של יד and other של חמור, it seems that של חמור is not של יד, not as the ר"י suggested! תוספות responds: לא משום דבשל חמור אין טוחנין ביד אלא סתם של יד אין בהן חמור אלא על גבי קרקע – It does not mean that in the ריחיים של חמור we do not grind by hand, but rather a ‘regular’ ריחיים של יד has no חמור (no support structure), but rather it stands, directly on the ground – ולכך קתני בתר הכי ושל חמור אבל תרוייהו טוחנין ביד: So therefore the ברייתא mentions afterwards a ריחיים של חמור which is supported by the wooden structure, however by both of them (של יד ושל חמור) the grinding is done by hand.

SUMMARY A חמור is a wooden structure which holds up the ריחיים. According to the ר"ח the grinding is done by foot, while according to the ר"ת it is done by hand.

THINKING IT OVER

1. Why is it that the ר"ח and the ר"י do not explain של חמור to mean literally that a donkey drives the mill (as רש"י seems to explain)?
2. How are we to understand the מחלוקת between the ר"ח and the ר"י whether the grinding is done by foot or by hand?

footnotes: ¹ The term חמור is used to indicate that just as a חמור carries a burden, this wooden structure also supports the burden of the mill; somewhat similar to our sawhorse. ² A board was place on the ground and the legs of the bed stand on this board. It is called חמור because it supports the bed. ³ The רש"ש amends this to read דתניא as it is a ברייתא in תוספתא דכלים [בבא מציעא] פ"ח ה"א. ⁴ The רש"ש amends this to read, עץ שהמפוח של נפחים סומך (instead of עץ שהנפח סומך). ⁵ The הגהות הב"ח amends this to read טמא (instead of טמאים). ⁶ The הגהות הב"ח amends this to read מתוחות (instead of מרווחת) ⁷ The vibration may be muted and absorbed by the wooden structure underneath the mill. ⁸ The הגהות הב"ח amends this to read שהוא (instead of כשהו). ⁹ משנה ב'. The מהר"ם amends this to read ריחיים של יד (instead of ריחיים ושל יד). ¹⁰ ה"ב.

*שמע מינה כליא¹ דתנור טפח—We know from this that the Kalyohof an oven is a Tefach*

OVERVIEW אביי stated that we can derive from our משנה that the protrusion of the כליא (to the rest of the oven) is a טפח and this is important regarding מקח וממכר. Our תוספות explains why this information was not discussed in a similar case previously.

תוספות responds to an anticipated difficulty:

The reason the גמרא previously did not state, ‘we can derive from the משנה that the שכב (base) of the mill also extends a טפח’ (just like it made this inference regarding an oven), this is because it was obviously known to them how a mill was; everyone knew that in the mills the שכב was a טפח wider than the rest of the mill.³

SUMMARY There is no need to belabor the obvious.

THINKING IT OVER

1. Can we somehow explain why is it that they knew the size of the mill, but not the size of the oven?
2. If everyone knows that the שכב extends a טפח from the רכב,⁴ why did the משנה have to add שהן ארבעה מן הרכב, it would be sufficient to state שלשה מן שכב and we would know that it is ארבעה מן הרכב?!⁵

footnotes: ¹ See on יז,א that רש"י בד"ה ואת explains כליא to mean the base of the oven, while תוספות בד"ה כליא (and in TIE there) maintains that it is the protruding belly of the oven. ² We know this since the משנה states שלש מן השכב שהן ד' מן הרכב. It is necessary to know this regarding מקח וממכר, just like by the oven, so why does not the גמרא mention this as well?!. ³ See ‘Thinking it over’ # 2. ⁴ See footnote # 3. ⁵ See נחלת משה.

תנור¹ דידן ככירה דנחתומין דמי –Our oven is like a baker’s stove

OVERVIEW Our משנה required a three טפח floor (מעזיבה) under a תנור and a one טפח floor under a כירה. The ברייתא required a four טפח floor under a תנור and a three טפח floor under a כירה. אביי resolved the contradiction by saying the ברייתא is discussing a תנור וכירה of bakers (נחתומין), while our משנה is discussing a תנור וכיריים in a house. אביי concluded that our תנור is like a baker’s כירה so they both require a floor of three טפחים. Our תוספות explains why אביי stated that our תנור is like a baker’s כירה (seemingly saying that the standard is the baker’s כירה); he should have said that our תנור and the baker’s כירה are the same.²

כל אחד היה עושה תנור שלו כפי מה שהיה רוצה גדול או קטן – Everyone would make their oven as they pleased; large or small (there is no standard size for a family תנור) – אבל כירות של נחתומין היו כולן שוות והיו בקיאין בהן ונפקא מינה³ למקח וממכר: However the bakers’ כירות were all the same and the people were well aware of their size, so this comparison of our תנור to the baker’s כירה is relevant regarding buying and selling.

SUMMARY A family תנור could be of any size, while the כירת הנחתומין was a set size and when one sells a תנור סתם it must be ככירת הנחתומין.

THINKING IT OVER On one hand תוספות states that there was no standard תנור size, and then תוספות concludes that by מו"מ one must give a תנור the size of כירת הנחתומין; why?! There is no standard תנור size!⁴

footnotes: ¹ A תנור (is larger and) has more heat than a כירה, therefore it requires more distancing. ² See מהרש"א. ³ אביי is teaching us that we can derive from this משנה and ברייתא that if one agrees to sell a תנור (without specifications) it must be the same size as כירת הנחתומין. See ‘Thinking it over’. ⁴ See נחלת משה.

מאי שנא רישא ומאי שנא סיפא—Why is it different in the Raysho and why is it different in the Sayfoh

OVERVIEW The רישא of our משנה taught that one may prevent someone opening a store in the חצר, by claiming, ‘I cannot sleep because of the coming and goings in the store’. The סיפא of the משנה taught that one cannot protest and say. ‘I cannot sleep because of the noise of the hammer or mill or children’. The גמרא asked מאי שנא רישא (where he can protest) ומ"ש סיפא (where he cannot protest). It would seem that the contradiction to the רישא is from all three cases in the סיפא (the hammer, mill, and children). However the גמרא only resolves the contradiction regarding children (not from פטיש וריחיים). תוספות clarifies the sגמרא' question.

השתא סלקא דעתין דתינוקות דסיפא היינו שבאין לקנות בחנות ומשום הכי פריך מאי שנא – Now (when the גמרא asks, מ"ש רישא ומ"ש סיפא) we assumed that the**** issue of the children – in the סיפא – is because they come to buy in the store and make noise, therefore the גמרא asks מ"ש (that in the רישא noise is an issue and in the סיפא the noise of children is a non-issue) – אבל מפטיש וריחים לא פריך דאין שם נכנסין ויוצאין – However regarding the noise from a hammer or a mill there was no question, for there are no comings and goings – דמי שיש לו חטין לטחון נותן לבעל הריחים¹ וכן² פטיש: For whoever has wheat to grind he gives it to the mill owner [and he grinds it] and similarly by the hammer (you give the metal to the smith and he fashions it).

SUMMARY The contradiction was only from תינוקות for we assumed that the תינוקות would be continually going and coming to the store.

THINKING IT OVER Why is he able to protest the coming and going in a store, and not able to protest the noise of a ריחים ופטיש.³

footnotes: ¹ The הגהות הב"ח amends this to read הריחים וטוחן וכן (instead of הריחים וכן). ² There is not much foot traffic by the mill and the smith, as there is by the store. ³ See רמב"ם הל שכנים פ"ו הי"ב ובמ"מ שם.