Ask A Question about the Daf

Previous daf

Shabbos 83

1) THE LIMBS OF A NIDAH

QUESTION: The Gemara says that a Nidah is not Metamei l'Evarim; her limbs do not cause other things to become Tamei. What does this mean? If the woman is alive and a limb comes off, it is Metamei because of Ever Min ha'Chai (a severed limb of a living person), which is just like Tum'as Mes which is Metamei b'Maga, Masa, and Ohel. If so, what difference does it make if it is not Metamei because of Nidah? And if the limb is still attached to her, then it certainly is Metamei what it touches, because the limb is part of her entire body!

(a) RASHI (82b) explains that the the limb is severed, and even though it is Metamei because of Tum'as Mes, Tum'as Mes is *not* Metamei through Even Mesama, whereas Nidah *is* Metamei through Even Mesama. If this limb is not Metamei because of Nidah, it will not be Metamai through Even Mesama.

(b) The RAMBAM (Hilchos Metamei Mishkav u'Moshav 8:4) says that the limb is not severed but is still attached to the woman's body. It makes a difference that it is not Metamei like a Nidah in a case when a Nidah puts her arm into a Kli Cheres (an earthenware vessel) without touching the sides. A Tamei object which enters the airspace of a Kli Cheres is Metamei the Kli Cheres. However, only if a Nidah goes into a Kli Cheres with her entire body, it becomes Tamei. If her hand goes into a Kli Cheres but her body is not within the vessel's airspace, then the vessel's status of Tahor or Tamei depends on whether the limb of a Nidah is Metamei.

(c) The RA'AVAD (ibid.) explains "Einah Metam'ah l'Evarim" to mean that a hand of a Nidah cannot cause Tum'as Mishkav or Moshav unless most of the weight of the Nidah rested on it. If a limb of a Nidah is Metamei independently, then it can be Metamei Mishkav or Moshav *without* most of the weight of the Nidah resting on it.

83b

QUESTION: Two reasons are given why a boat is not Mekabel Tum'as Mes. (1) The Tana of our Mishnah says that a boat is not Mekabel Tum'ah because the verse compares it to the sea (which cannot become Tamei). (2) Chananyah, in the Beraisa, says that a boat is not a vessel which can be carried both while empty and while full (it is a "Kli sh'Eino Metaltel Malei v'Reikan").

TOSFOS asks that a boat *should* become Tamei with Tum'as *Midras*, because it is made for sitting and lying upon. Tum'as Midras does not depend on the ability of the vessel to be carried both while full and empty (since that type of Tum'ah is not juxtaposed with sackcloth in the verse that teaches the conditions for Tum'as Maga; Bechoros 38a; for instance, it applies even to objects that are flat and do not have receptacles). And since a boat should become Tamei with Tum'as Midras, it should also be able to become Tamei with Tum'as *Mes*, for the Gemara (84b) says that anything which is Mekabel Tum'as Midras is also Mekabel Tum'as Mes! Why, then, is a boat not Mekabel Tum'ah according to Chananyah?

ANSWERS:

(a) TOSFOS (DH Nilmidah m'Sak) says that even though people sit on the boat, the main purpose of a boat is to carry loads. A person sitting can be told to leave in order to set down loads. Since Tum'as Midras only applies to objects that are prepared for people sit upon, it does not apply to a boat.

(b) The RAMBAN explains that people sleep on *beds* or sit on *chairs* on the boat. The boat itself, though, is like the ground, which is not slept upon without a covering of some sort.

(c) The RE'AH (cited in Chidushei ha'Ran on Daf 44b and here) says that the only time the juxtaposition to sackcloth is *not* made is with regard to a *wooden vessel which has no receptacle* (Peshutei Kli Etz). Even though it has no receptacle, a vessel will still become Tamei with Tum'as Midras. However, with regard to *all other* conditions, the juxtaposition *is* made, and thus the conditions taught for sackcloth apply also to Tum'as Midras. (For example, the utensil must be Metaltel Malei v'Reikan in order to be Mekabel Tum'as Midras). Anything that is not Metaltel Malei v'Rekan is not Mekabel any Tum'ah at all; neither Tum'as Midras not Tum'as Mes. (The RAMBAN here also mentions this idea, but he remains in doubt whether it is true.)

(d) RAV MOSHE SHAPIRO SHLITA explains that the RAMBAM seems to have a different approach to this question. The Mishnah (Ohalos 8:1) teaches that a *Kli* that is held above a Mes does not stop Tum'ah from spreading above it, even if the Kli is made of stone (which is not Mekabel Tum'ah itself). The Rambam (Hilchos Tum'as Mes 13:3) writes that if the stone Kli is so large ("ha'Ba b'Midah") that it cannot be carried, it *will* stop Tum'ah from spreading above it. Why should there be a difference between a small stone or a large stone? If a small stone Kli does not stop Tum'ah from spreading above it even though it itself is not Mekabel Tum'ah, why should a large stone Kli stop Tum'ah from spreading above it? Apparently, the Rambam maintains that when it is so large, it is no longer called a Kli and therefore is able to stop Tum'ah from spreading above it (it is an Ohel). Similarly, the RASH in Maseches Yadayim says that although a person may use a stone Kli for Netilas Yadayim (even though it is not Mekabel Tumah), one may *not* use a very large Kli (ha'Ba'ah b'Midah). What is the difference between the two -- they are both Tahor? It must be that a large stone Kli is not considered a Kli at all, but an Ohel. As such, its Taharah has nothing to do with being compared to sackcloth. (Support for this can be drawn from the Gemara earlier, 35a.)

Therefore, in our Sugya the Rambam will learn that the boat is not Mekabel even Tum'as Midras, because it is not a Kli at all. (The RITVA (44b) mentions such an opinion and rejects it.)