QUESTION: The Gemara discusses whether the Tum'ah of Eretz ha'Amim is
Metamei because of "Avira" (the air) or because of "Gusha" (the ground). If
it is Metamei because of "Avira," that means that the Tum'ah is more
invasive than the Tum'ah of a Mes, such that even if a person travels into
Eretz ha'Amim while completely enclosed, with a partition between him and
the ground, he will still become Tamei because the air itself is Metamei.
The Gemara attempts to prove that this is a Machlokes Tana'im between Rebbi
and Rebbi Yosi bar Rebbi Yehudah. They argue whether a person who travels to
Eretz ha'Amim in an enclosed chest or box ("Shidah, Teivah, or Migdal") is
Tahor or Tamei. The Gemara concludes that both Rebbi and Rebbi Yosi bar
Rebbi Yehudah hold that Eretz ha'Amim is Metamei because of "Avira," and the
reason why Rebbi Yosi bar Rebbi Yehudah says a person in a box is Tahor is
because traveling in such a manner is not common ("Lo Shachi'ach") and
therefore the Rabanan did not make a Gezeirah to prohibit it with Tum'ah.
Why does the Gemara assert that both Rebbi and Rebbi Yosi bar Rebbi Yehudah
hold that Eretz ha'Amim is Metamei because of "Avira?" The Gemara could just
as well have said that they both hold that Eretz ha'Amim is Metamei because
of "Gusha!" A chest or box is an "Ohel Zaruk," a moving or "thrown"
container, which is not considered an Ohel to serve as a partition between
it and Tum'ah according to both Rebbi and Rebbi Yosi bar Rebbi Yehudah
(according to Tosfos' first explanation; see following Insight). Therefore,
the box does not serve as a partition between the occupant and the ground,
and the ground should be Metamei him through Tum'as Ohel, since he is
traversing over Tum'ah. Nevertheless, Rebbi Yosi bar Rebbi Yehudah says that
he is Tahor, because it is a highly uncommon way of going into Eretz
ha'Amim. Why does the Gemara need to say that they are both Metamei because
of "Avira?" (MISHNEH L'MELECH, Hilchos Tum'as Mes 11:1)
ANSWERS:
(a) The MISHNEH L'MELECH suggests that the Gemara does not mean that both
Tana'im must hold that Eretz ha'Amim is Metamei because of "Avira" according
to this answer. Rather, the Gemara means that the Machlokes of Rebbi and
Rebbi Yosi bar Rebbi Yehudah does not depend on whether Eretz ha'Amim is
Metamei because of "Avira" or because of "Gusha." They could both hold that
it is Metamei because of "Avira" *or* because of "Gusha."
(b) Perhaps if Eretz ha'Amim is Metamei because of "Gusha," then the logic
that "the Rabanan did not make a Gezeirah for a highly uncommon way [of
traveling]" could not apply here. It is only because it is Metamei because
of "Avira" that we could say that the Gezeirah does not apply in all cases.
What is the logic behind this?
There is a basic difference between Eretz ha'Amim being Metamei because of
"Avira" and Eretz ha'Amim being Metamei because of "Gusha." If the Gezeirah
that says that Eretz ha'Amim is Metamei is because of "Gusha," then it is
based on the fear that there might be a source of Tum'ah (such as a Mes)
concealed within the ground of Eretz ha'Amim. As a result, we must treat
every part of Eretz ha'Amim as if there is a Mes buried in it.
However, if the Gezeirah is because of "Avira," then there is an entirely
different reason for the Tum'ah of Eretz ha'Amim. The Rabanan simply
instituted Tum'ah in Eretz ha'Amim in order to prevent people from leaving
Eretz Yisrael. They instituted it in a way that it will be Metamei a person
anytime he goes into Chutz la'Aretz, even when he has a partition separating
him from the ground (see Tosfos 54b, DH Eretz ha'Amim).
If the Rabanan made the Gezeirah of Tum'as Eretz ha'Amim because of "Gusha,"
then the Rabanan instituted that in Eretz ha'Amim, we must be wary of a Mes.
Even if a person travels to Eretz ha'Amim in an unusual manner, the Gezeirah
will still apply, because as far as the Tum'ah is concerned, there is
nothing unusual about how the Tum'ah is reaching him. Tum'as Mes is Metamei
any person who walks or traverses over it (regardless of the means of
transportation he uses). However, if Tum'as Eretz ha'Amim was instituted in
order to prevent people from traveling to Eretz ha'Amim, then if one travels
in an unusual way, perhaps the Rabanan could exclude him from the Gezeirah
since his mode of transportation is unusual, a "Milsa d'Lo Shachi'ach."
QUESTIONS: The Gemara cites a Beraisa in which Rebbi and Rebbi Yosi bar
Rebbi Yehudah argue whether a person who goes into Eretz ha'Amim in an
entirely enclosed container ("Shidah, Teivah, or Migdal") becomes Tamei with
Tum'as Eretz ha'Amim. The Gemara suggests that they might be arguing whether
an "Ohel Zaruk" (a moving Ohel) is considered an Ohel or not. Rebbi says the
person is Tamei because he holds that an Ohel Zaruk is *not* considered an
Ohel.
The Gemara then cites another Beraisa in which Rebbi Yosi bar Rebbi Yehudah
says that when someone throws a container full of Kelim over a Mes, all of
the Kelim inside the container become Tamei. If the container is not thrown
but is standing still, then all of the Kelim inside the box remain Tahor.
TOSFOS brings two explanations for this Gemara. According to the first
explanation, the Gemara cites this second Beraisa as a rejection of the
Gemara's initial understanding of the Machlokes between Rebbi and Rebbi Yosi
bar Rebbi Yehudah. The Gemara is saying that Rebbi Yosi bar Rebbi Yehudah
cannot hold that the person is Tahor because of "Ohel Zaruk Shmei Ohel,"
because he says explicitly (in the second Beraisa) that if an Ohel is thrown
over a Mes, the Kelim inside become Tamei! The Gemara continues and suggests
other ways of explaining the Machlokes between Rebbi and Rebbi Yosi bar
Rebbi Yehudah.
According to the second explanation of Tosfos, the Beraisa is cited as a
*proof* that the Gemara's understanding of the Machlokes is correct. Rebbi
Yosi bar Rebbi Yehudah indeed holds that an Ohel Zaruk is a valid partition
between the person and the ground, and this is why he says in the second
Beraisa that when a box is *placed* on something, such as the back of a
person or an animal, even though the person or animal passes the box over a
Mes, the box does not become Tamei, because an Ohel Zaruk *is* an Ohel. If
the box is flying in the air, though, and it passes over a Mes, then even
Rebbi Yosi bar Rebbi Yehudah agrees that the box does not keep the items
inside from becoming Tamei, since an object *in flight* cannot be an Ohel.
Even though this explanation is not rejected, the Gemara continues and
suggests other explanations for the Machlokes.
There are a number of basic questions that Tosfos leaves unanswered on the
first explanation. First, Tosfos cites the Gemara in Eruvin and in Chagigah
that assumes that Rebbi and Rebbi Yosi bar Rebbi Yehudah in the Beraisa
*are* arguing whether Ohel Zaruk is considered an Ohel. According to the
first explanation, how can the Gemara in Eruvin and Chagigah be ignoring the
Beraisa which our Gemara quotes in order to disprove this? (The RITVA in
Eruvin rejects this explanation of Tosfos because of this question.)
Second, the Gemara's final explanation for the Machlokes between Rebbi and
Rebbi Yosi bar Rebbi Yehudah is that they both agree that the Rabanan only
decreed Tum'ah on the "Gush" of Eretz ha'Amim. Accordingly, a person who
travels there in a box should be Tahor. Rebbi, though, says that he is Tamei
because of a Gezeirah "Shema Yotzi Rosho v'Rubo" -- perhaps he might extend
his head and most of his body out of the box into Eretz ha'Amim.
If Rebbi Yosi bar Rebbi Yehudah agrees that Ohel Zaruk is *not* an Ohel, how
can he say that the person inside the box is Tahor? Even if the Rabanan only
decreed Tum'ah on the "Gush" of Eretz ha'Amim, it is clear that they decreed
Tum'ah on a person who either touches (Maga) or travels over (Ohel) the
"Gush" of Eretz ha'Amim! (See TOSFOS 54b, DH Eretz ha'Amim.) Since the Ohel
Zaruk is not considered a partition between the person and the ground, the
person inside is considered to be traversing over the ground of Eretz
ha'Amim and should be Tamei! (Although the previous answer in the Gemara
suggests that Rebbi Yosi bar Rebbi Yehudah says that the person is Tahor
because traveling in a box is very uncommon ("Milsa d'Lo Shachi'ach"), this
last answer is clearly offering an alternate explanation and is not relying
on the logic of "Milsa d'Lo Shachi'ach.") TOSFOS in Chagigah rejects this
explanation because of this question.
ANSWER: Even according to the first explanation, Rebbi and Rebbi Yosi bar
Rebbi Yehudah indeed might be arguing with regard to an Ohel Zaruk. However,
their argument does not involve a case where a person carries a box with a
person or Kelim inside over a Mes. The argument involves a box with a person
or Kelim inside that is resting *stationary* ("Munachas"). Rebbi Yosi bar
Rebbi Yehudah holds that an "Ohel Zaruk," meaning an Ohel that is portable
and is often moved, is considered an Ohel while it is stationary (but not
while it is moving). Rebbi argues and holds that since the Ohel is normally
moved from place to place, even when it is stationary it cannot be
considered an Ohel. The Machlokes is in a case of "Munachas," where the Ohel
is not moving. This is how the Gemara in Eruvin and Chagigah understand the
argument of Rebbi and Rebbi Yosi bar Rebbi Yehudah regarding "Shidah,
Teivah, u'Migdal" in Eretz ha'Amim -- they argue about Ohel Zaruk.
The Beraisa is discussing an Ohel Zaruk which is presently stationary and is
being held above the ground at the border between Eretz Yisrael and Chutz
la'Aretz. When a person walks into it from Eretz Yisrael, Rebbi Yosi bar
Rebbi Yehudah says he is Tahor because the box is stationary ("Munachas")
and is considered an Ohel. Rebbi says that the person is Tamei because it is
an Ohel Zaruk, an Ohel made for transporting. Our Gemara, in contrast,
prefers not to have the Tana'im arguing about a stationary Ohel. The Gemara
assumes that if it is not moving, no Tana would be Metamei the box just
because it is made to move. That is why our Gemara does not remain with the
explanation that Rebbi and Rebbi Yosi bar Rebbi Yehudah are arguing about
Ohel Zaruk. Rather, the final explanation of the Gemara assumes that the
box, the Ohel, is held above the ground at the border of Eretz Yisrael, and
since it is stationary both Rebbi and Rebbi Yosi bar Rebbi Yehudah should
maintain that its contents are Tahor. The only reason Rebbi says that the
contents are Tamei is because of the Gezeirah "Shema Yotzi Rosho v'Rubo."