Join thousands around the world learning just 2 mishnayot a day and finish Shas in under 6 years.

Download the Calendar (5786) »


This Week's Article

Making and Breaking Stone Ovens

Keilim (6:3) | Yisrael Bankier | a day ago

In the fifth perek we began learning about the unique laws regarding an earthenware oven or stove. Even though these keilim do not have a base and are attached to the grown, we learnt that they are still susceptible to tumah in the same way as ordinary earthenware keilim. In the sixth perek we learnt that this law also applies to a makeshift oven. This is where one takes two stones places the next to one another with a space between, and cements them.1 That way the pot is raised, resting on the stones, with the fire beneath. Note that this is despite the fact the stone utensils are not susceptible to tumah.

The third Mishnah discusses cases where this stove has been extended. In other words, there are three stones now placed in a row, thereby providing two places for the pots to rest, with the middle stone shared by both pots.

The end of the Mishnah discusses a case where both "stoves" became tameh and the middle stone was then removed. The Mishnah teaches that if a large pot could still rest on the two outer stones, then it is still tameh.2 If not, the two stoves are considered broken and they would be tahor.

The Tifferet Yisrael explains that when the two outer stones can still serve a large pot, it is important to understand that the now combined stove remains tameh and not just that they are tahor and susceptible to tumah. Despite the fact it is not the same stove as it was before, since it is still a stove, it retains the tumah.

The Mishnah however continues that if the middle stone was returned to its place, the stoves are tahor.3 Why?

The Bartenura explains that by placing the middle stone there it effectively breaks the oven. It is still not however clear what the difference is between when the stone was removed and when it was returned. Why is the ruling different?

The Tifferet Yisrael explains that widening the space, as long as it can still function, is not considered breaking the oven, whereas reducing the space is. Again, it is not immediately clear what the difference is between widening and narrowing.

The Chazon Ish (Keilim 8:9) also ask the same questions. If returning the stone is considered as if the large oven is broken and replaced with two new smaller oven, then the same should be true in the reverse when removing the middle stone.

The Chazon Ish explains the difference as follows. When returning the stone, it indeed creates two new ovens. Nevertheless, there is a delay before they can become tameh. That middles stone needs to be cemented in place. Even if the Mishnah was referring to where the middle stone was cemented, it would still need its first firing up to become susceptible to tuamh. Consequently, due to this "delay" the tumah disappears from the ovens. In the first case however, when the stone is removed, the new large oven is immediately susceptible to tumah. There is nothing materially lacking and it does not even need it first firing up.

The Chazon Ish is still not satisfied. He asks that when the stone is removed, why should it still be tameh. It should only be considered like taking two have tameh keilim and combining them together. He explains, that removing the stone is therefore understood as being like expanding the space of the original stove and it therefore retains its tumah (much like the Tifferet Yirael explained above). When returning the stone, it is not yet fit for use until the middle piece is firmly established.


1 The Rishonim debate whether the Mishnah means that they were cemented to the ground and connected at the top.

2 The Mishnah Achrona assumes that this is the law only if both the original, small stoves were tameh. If however, one was originally tameh and the other tahor, it would not make that outer tahor brick tameh, because it was never tameh.

3 The Tifferet Yisrael (Boaz 5) explains that this is even if the middle stone was not cemented in place. Despite the fact the placement of stone is not ordinarily enough to break the kli, in this case, there was a stone in that location previously.

Download

Calendar


Weekly Publication

Receive our publication with an in depth article and revision questions.

Subscribe Now »

Audio Shiurim

Listen to the Mishnah Shiurim by Yisrael Bankier

Listen Now »