(Permission is granted to print and redistribute this material
as long as this header and the footer at the end are included.)


prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem

Previous daf

Shabbos 84



1. A small wagon (shaped like a sedan-chair) which is made for sitting, is Metamei Medras - since it is made specifically to sit on.
2. A long wagon that is also used to transport goods, is Tamei Tum'as Mes and all other forms of Tum'ah, but not Tum'as Medras - since it is not made exclusively to sit or to lie on.
3. A wagon made for transporting stones is not subject to Tum'ah at all, since it has large holes underneath (and any Kli which has holes larger than a pomegranate, is Tahor.
(a) A large box, whose door is at the side, can be used without asking the person who is sleeping on top to get off. Consequently, it is Tamei Tum'as Medras.
However, if the door is on top, and the person who is sleeping there will have to move when they want to use the inside of the box ('Amod ve'Na'aseh Melachtenu'), then it is not subject to Tum'as Medras.

(b) Yes! It *is* subject to other Tum'os, to become even an Av ha'Tum'ah through a Mes, and a Rishon through other Tum'os, but not through Medras ha'Zav.

(c) When Rebbi Yochanan said that 'Amod ve'Na'aseh Melachtenu' applies to Tum'as Mes, he was not talking about Tum'as Medras at all, but about a vessel which broke, which, in his opinion, is only subject to Tum'ah if one can say 'Amod ve'Na'aseh Melachtenu' - i.e. it is fit to perform its original function.

(d) A 'Teivah ha'Ba'ah be'Midah' is a wooden chest which is so large, that people tend to give it a measure. It is not Metamei because of other Tum'os, because it is too large to carry when it is full. Nor is it Metamei because of Tum'as Medras, since the window, via which one uses the inside, is on top, in which case, it is like the wagon with the door on top - which we discussed above (in a).

(a) In that case, asks Rav Papa, why did Rebbi Yossi use the word 'Af'? Did the Tana Kama speak about anything being Tahor, that Rebbi Yossi should add that *also* the boat is Tahor?

(b) This is how Rav Papa therefore explains it: 'Medras Kli Cheres, Tahor (u'Maga'o, Tamei; ve'Shel Eitz, Bein Medraso, u'Vein Maga'o, Tamei. u'Sefinas ha'Yarden, Tehorah ke'Tana Didan). Rebbi Yossi Omer, Af ha'Sefinah (Temei'ah, ka'Chananya).

(c) From either of the two Pesukim:

1. "ve'Ish Asher Yishkav be'*Mishkavo"".
2. "ke'Mishkav *Nidasah* Yihyeh Lah",
we learn that the Torah compares the Mishkav to the person him(her)-self, to say that, just as the person can become Tahor by going to the Mikvah, so too, the Mishkav. In other words, a Mishkav that cannot be Toveled - such as one made of earthenware (which is never subject to Tevilah) is not Metamei Mishkav or Moshav.
(a) A Mapatz is a cane mat, which we would have thought is not subject to Tum'ah at all, because it is a straight wooden vessel, which cannot become Tamei Sheretz. Under normal circumstances, it would not be subject to Tum'as Mes either.

(b) We learn that it is, in fact, subject to Tum'as Mes, from a Kal va'Chomer from small earthenware jars, which, although they remain Tahor if a Zav sits or lies on them, are nevertheless Tamei Tum'as Mes; a Mapatz, which *is* Tamei through a Zav, should certainly become Tamei through a Mes!

(c) But did we not just learn from the two Pesukim in Vayikra, that, any vessel which cannot be Toveled, cannot become Tamei Medras? So why should the Mapatz (which is a vessel that is not subject to Tevilah) be any different?




(a) A Mapatz is not subject to Tevilah, because, like food, straight wooden vessels are not mentioned in the Parshah of Tevilas Kelim in Matos.

(b) Rebbi Chanina answers that the Torah includes a Mapatz with vessels that are subject to Tum'as Mes (despite the fact that it is *not* subject to Tevilah) because its kind - wooden receptacles - *are*.

(c) Rebbi Ila'a was not impressed with Rebbi Chanina's answer. He said to him 'May Hashem save us from such an opinion!

(d) The Gemara vindicates Rebbi Chanina by quoting the Pasuk in Metzora "ve'Chol ha'Mishkav Asher Yishkav Alav ha'Zav Yitma", which suggests that the Torah does *not* compare a Mishkav to the person who sits on it - and that *all* Mishkavim are subject to Tum'as Mishkav. But did we not quote the Pasuk "ve'Ish Asher Yiga be'*Mishkavo*", suggesting that only a Mishkav which is subject to Tevilah, like the person who sat on it, is, is subject to Tum'as Moshav?
The answer must be that the Torah comes to include here a Mapatz, which itself, is *not* subject to Tevilah, but whose kind, *is*.

(a) The Pasuk writes in Chukas: "ve'Chol Kli Pasu'ach Asher Ein Tzamid Pasil Alav, Tamei Hu" - implying that if it does have a sealed lid, then it is Tahor. Who can say that the Torah does not incorporate an earthenware vessel which was designated for his wife to sit on - even when she is a Nidah? So we see, says Rava, that there is no Tum'as Medras by earthenware vessels?

(b) No! says Rashi. If there is no Tum'as Medras by sealed earthenware vessels, then there is no Tum'as Heset either (See Tosfos DH 'she'Tehorim').

(a) One is permitted to sow five different kinds in a patch of six Tefachim by six Tefachim.

(b) The five seeds are hinted in this way:

1. "Totzi";
2. "Tzimchah";
3.&4. "Zeru'ehah";
5. "Tatzmi'ach".
(c) Each seed fills one row of minimal width, with a minimal space left at the end of each row, so that the seeds should not actually mix with those in the row adjacent to it. The Isur of Kil'ayim is the actual mixing, not just the fact that the seeds feed jointly. Therefore, it does not matter that the seeds grow within three Tefachim of each other - since the fact that they have been sown adjacent to each other - and not parallel, is sufficient Heker (sign of recognition) to demonstrate that they are not growing together (and over-rides the fact that they are feeding jointly).

(d) There where no Heker exists, a space of three Tefachim is required between one seed and the other. Consequently, the required space of three Tefachim will remain between the seed in the middle and those on each of the four sides. Why three Tefachim?
Because seeds feed from a distance of one and a half Tefachim. Consequently, any two seeds which do not have the necessary Heker, must be sown at least three Tefachim apart, to ensure that they do not feed from each other.

8) The *Torah* only forbids Kil'ayim be'Kerem; Ke'Lai Zera'im - with which our Sugya is dealing - is purely *mi'de'Rabbanan*.

Next daf


For further information on
subscriptions, archives and sponsorships,
contact Kollel Iyun Hadaf,