This Week's Article

Another Aruba Case

Ohalot (10:3) | Yisrael Bankier | 14 hours ago

The tenth perek, once again discusses the case of the aruba, but this time in more detail. The first few Mishnah discusses a simple single-story house, where the aruba, the hole in the ceiling, is open to the sky. The first few Mishnayot discuss how the location of the tumat ha’met and the size of the aruba effects the tumah transfer.

The third Mishnah however discusses the case where the aruba is less than a tephach wide, but the source of tumat ha’met is located partially under the aruba and partially under the roof of the house. R’ Meir maintains that both areas are tameh; R’ Yehuda argues that only the area under the ceiling is tameh; whereas R’ Yossi maintains that if there is a kezayit’s worth under both regions, then he agrees with R’ Meir, otherwise he aligns with R’ Yehuda’s position. We shall try to understand this Mishnah.

First, we need to recall the previous Mishnah, which we also mentioned in last week’s article. The Mishnah was referring to a case where the aruba was less than a tephach wide*.* There we learnt that if the tumah was inside the house, then the house would be tameh and the aruba would be tahor. If the tumah was under the aruba then the house would be tahor.

The Mishnah Achrona first explains R’ Yehuda and R’ Yosi in our Mishnah as follows. We know that if tumah is inside, even if it is isolated from other section of the house, we apply the principle that “it is the way for tumah to leave”. In other words, the areas along the exit path would already be tameh. Consequently, according to R’ Yehuda, the only opening that is larger than a tephach is through the house and all the tumah “leaves” in that direction – so only the house is tameh. R’ Yossi however would appear to consistent with his opinion that the tumah could be removed in parts. Consequently if there is a tephach amount below the aruba, then it is viewed as split and the aruba is tameh.

The Mishnah Achrona however continues with the explanation based on what we saw in last weeks article. Recall that the Bartenura explained that the reason why when the tumah is entirely beneath the aruba the house is tahor is as follows. For tumah we only say levud – we view that small empty space less that a tephach is if it were filled – only when it results in a leniency. Consequently, we do not apply levud in that case, otherwise the entire house would be tameh. In this case however since the tumah is already partially inside the house, so the house is already tameh. That being the cause, it would be a leniency in this case to apply levud in order that the region above the aruba could remain tahor.

The Mishnah Achrona continues that R’ Yossi would also agree with this logic. However, he is concerned that if the part that was under the aruba was a kezayit and we made the region above the aruba tahor, then one might confuse it with the case of the previous Mishnah. They might think that if the entire piece was underneath the aruba it would also be tahor above it, which is not the case. He notes however that explaining it this way would not require a kezayit amount beneath the aruba and inside the house – two in total. According to R’ Yossi as long as there is a kezayit amount underneath the aruba and some inside the house, then above the aruba would also be tameh.

Download