Limud Torah with Rav Chaim

Latest News

Newsflash

Sukka 5a3

Tosfos brings a Toras Kohanim that makes a similar Drasha. The Torah makes a Hekesh (by the Parsha of Tuma) from a wooden utensil to a sack. Just like a sack facilitates a person and his utensils, so too wooden utensils, they're only Mekabel Tumah if they facilitate people and utensils. (Tosfos infers that we're not referring to utensils made for sitting (that can Mekabel Tumas Medris) since the example the Braisa gives are tables and not beds. He also infers that they don't have receptacles, since they don't make the comparison to sack that just like sack that can be moved full or empty etc.)

So, when the Gemara says that according to those that the rim is on top (therefore there is no proof from the Shulchon that a reversible board is Mekabel Tumah) there is a Shaila whether a reversible board is Mekabel Tumah from the Torah or not. The Shaila stems if this Drasha in Toras Kohanim is a true Drasha or only an Asmachta.

Even to those that say the rim of the Shulchon was on the bottom, by the legs, and learns that a reversible board is Mekabel Tumah from the Shulchon (that the Torah calls it the Shulchon HaTahor. This infers that it may become Tumei.) We still need the Drasha of the Toras Kohanim (even if it's not an Asmachta) for other utensils that facilitate people and utensil. If it would only say the Drasha of Toras Kohanim, we would still need the Drasha of Shulchon Tahar to teach us that the Shulchon was removed during Yom Tov to show the people. (If it was always left in it's place, it would not Mekabel Tuma like all wooden vessels that are made to be only stationary.)

Sukka 5a2

(Tosfos continues, how do we reconcile that a flat wooden utensil is not Mekabel Tuma from the Torah, yet we see from the top of the Shulchon (if there was no rim to the board,) it's Mekabel Tuma from the Torah since it's "reversible.")
Another answer is that only those utensils that facilitate people and their utensils are Mekabel Tuma. But those that only facilitates one of those categories and not the other are not Mekabel Tumah from the Torah. Therefore, if a baker's tray doesn't facilitate both, so it's not Mekabel Tuma from the Torah.

Sukka 5a

(We said we learn the thickness of the cover of the Aron from the rim of the Shulchon)

The Gemara asks why don't we learn it from the "crown" that were on the utensils that was only a very small amount?

The Gemara answers that we need to learn the cover of the Aron, which is an intrinsic part of the Aron, from something that is an intrinsic part of the utensil and not from an accessory of an utensil.

How can you call the rim of the Shulchon an intrinsic part of the utensil? It makes sense only to the Shita that holds the rim was below the table top (Rashi: the rim went from leg to leg and the table top was placed upon the rim,) but the Shita that holds it was above the table top what will you say?

Tosfos says that this Gemara disproves Shitas R' Tam. R' Tam explains the Shita that the rim was below the table top that it was attached to the table top. Instead of going around the board on the top, it went around the board from the bottom. But in our Gemara it says that, according to that Shita, the rim was an intrinsic part of the utensil, but according to R' Tam, it was only decorative.
What bothered R' Tam to explain it in that way? Since we see two Gemaras that implies that a wooden utensil that doesn't have a receptacle doesn't Mekabel Tuma from the Torah. (The Gemara in Bechoros says that we don't find Tuma in a flat wooden utensil only if it's made for sitting (that's Mekabel Tumas Medris.) The Gemara in Bava Basra says that the wooden flat baker's tray is only Mekabel Tuma Midarabanan. Yet the Gemara in Menachos says, that according to those that the rim was below, ,since the Torah implies the Shulchon can be Mekabel Tumah, we see that a reversible board is Mekabel Tumah.