QUESTION: Rav Kahana asked the sons of Rebbi Chiya what the law is in the case of Kemitzah done to a Minchah that has a gap between its two halves. Does the Torah recognize the concept of "Tziruf Kli," that the contents in one vessel are considered connected by virtue of being in the same vessel, or is it only a principle enacted by the Rabanan?

The simple explanation of Rav Kahana's question is that if Tziruf Kli is mid'Oraisa, it is reasonable to assume that the Kemitzah should be considered as though it was taken from the entire Minchah. If Tziruf Kli is only mid'Rabanan, then mid'Oraisa the Kemitzah in this case should not be valid, since it was taken from only half of a Minchah.

However, this approach is not tenable according to the ruling of the RAMBAM. The Rambam (Hilchos She'ar Avos ha'Tum'ah 12:7) rules that Tziruf Kli is an enactment of the Rabanan. However, in Hilchos Pesulei ha'Mukdashin (11:23), with regard to the case of the Gemara here, the Rambam writes that there is a doubt whether the vessel combines the two parts of the Minchah. He concludes that one should not perform Kemitzah in such a case, and if Kemitzah was done, it should not be burned on the Mizbe'ach. If it was burned on the Mizbe'ach, it indeed atones but the leftover flour of the Minchah should not be eaten.

If the Rambam rules that Tziruf Kli is mid'Rabanan, then he also should rule that the Kemitzah in the case of the Gemara is definitely invalid. Why does he rule that it is a doubt, and therefore it is valid b'Di'eved?

ANSWER: The KEREN ORAH and LIKUTEI HALACHOS answer that it is possible that the Rambam's text of the Gemara did not mention that this question depends on whether Tziruf Kli is mid'Oraisa or mid'Rabanan. Perhaps he understood that the question involves the Derashah which the Gemara quotes later, "v'Herim Mimenu" -- "And he shall remove from it..." (Vayikra 6:8) -- he shall remove the Kemitzah from a connected Minchah, and not from a Minchah that is separated into two parts.

Rava here maintains that this Derashah may teach only that one may not perform Kemitzah when the Minchah is in two separate vessels, but he may perform Kemitzah when the Minchah is separated into two parts in a single vessel. On the other hand, this Derashah may teach that the entire Minchah must be connected in order to perform Kemitzah. The Rambam's ruling that the Kemitzah done in such a case is valid b'Di'eved is based on Rava's understanding, which is unrelated to Tziruf Kli. As mentioned above, since Tziruf Kli is only mid'Rabanan, it cannot make the Kemitzah valid. (Y. MONTROSE)

OPINIONS: Abaye quotes the Mishnah in Kelim (27:9) in order to prove that there is no concept of "Sava Lei Tum'ah" -- "Tum'ah has made it full." The Mishnah there discusses a sheet that became Tamei with Tum'as Midras (for example, a Zav sat or reclined on it). If one converts the sheet into a curtain, it loses its Tum'as Midras, but it remains Tamei like an object that touched something that was Tamei with Tum'as Midras. Rebbi Yosi in the Mishnah argues that it should not be Tamei if it did not actually touch something that was Tamei with Tum'as Midras. Rather, if a Zav touches it, it becomes Tamei because the Zav touched it.

Does Rebbi Yosi mean that it becomes Tamei from contact with a Zav when the Zav touched it when it was a sheet, or even after it was made into a curtain?

(a) RASHI (DH Tahor, DH Ela, DH Ki) explains that Rebbi Yosi refers to a case in which the Zav sat on it and touched it when it was a sheet. Turning it into a curtain removes its Tum'as Midras, since it no longer is something upon which people can recline. An object can become Tamei with Midras only when its purpose is for use as a seat or bed (see Chagigah 23b). Once it is converted into a curtain, it retains only the Tum'ah that came about from contact with the Zav, but not the Tum'ah of the sitting or reclining (Midras) of the Zav. The Mishnah there proves that there is no such concept that one type of impurity is the maximum for any object, since the sheet has both the Tum'ah of Midras and the Tum'ah of Maga before it is converted into a curtain, and the Tum'ah of Maga remains even after it becomes a curtain.

(b) The RAMBAM (in Perush ha'Mishnayos) and the BARTNEURA in Kelim explain that Rebbi Yosi is discussing a Zav who touches the curtain. It becomes Tamei from the touch of the Zav only when the Zav touches it in its present state, as a curtain. If the Zav touched it only when it was a sheet, when the sheet is converted into a curtain it loses all of its Tum'ah, even the Tum'as Maga of a Zav.

The TOSFOS CHADASHIM, MISHNAH ACHARONAH, and others ask that the explanation of the Rambam and Bartenura seems to conflict with the Gemara here. The point of the Gemara here is to prove from the Mishnah in Kelim that there is no concept of "Sava Lei Tum'ah." This is proven only if the sheet had both forms of Tum'ah before it became a curtain (that is, a Zav touched it when it was a sheet), and one form of Tum'ah (Tum'as Maga) remains after it becomes a curtain. Rebbi Yosi's point that the Tum'as Maga of the sheet remains even after it becomes a sheet clearly shows that the Tum'as Maga was there in the first place.

The BIRKAS HA'ZEVACH answers that the Rambam and Bartenura understand that the true explanation of the Mishnah in Kelim is not as Abaye explains it. Rava could have refuted Abaye's proof by giving the correct explanation of the Mishnah, but he chose to refute the proof in a different manner. (See also TZON KODASHIM.) (Y. MONTROSE)