ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous dafShabbos 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
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
(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
(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"".
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.
2. "ke'Mishkav *Nidasah* Yihyeh Lah",
(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
(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
(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
(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
(a) One is permitted to sow five different kinds in a patch of six Tefachim
by six Tefachim.
The *Torah* only forbids Kil'ayim be'Kerem; Ke'Lai Zera'im - with which our
Sugya is dealing - is purely *mi'de'Rabbanan*.
(b) The five seeds are hinted in this way:
(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