משך חכמה על בראשית פרק לב פסוק כד
ויעבר את אשר לו - הנה בפ' מצורע (יד, לה) כתוב אשר לו הבית ודרשו (ערכין טז) שאינו משאיל כליו לאחרים כן כאן שכל הכלים היה משאילן לאחרים שאף שהוא חדש טומאת עו"ג כמו שאמר (בראשית לה ב) והחליפו שמלותיכם והטהרו (רמב"ם פ"ו מהל' אבות הטומאה) יכול היה להשאילן ולטובלן אבל כלי חרס לא היה יכול להשאילן שאין להן טהרה במקוה אלא שבירה (שבת פד סע"א) לכן היו מיוחדין לו לבדו שלא יכנסו בבית שיש בו עו"ג ולכן אמרו שנשתייר על פכים קטנים (רש"י. חולין צא סע"א) וזה כלי חרס ודו"ק
R' Henoch Moshe Levin noted that the Meshech Chochmo here seems difficult: The phrase here seems to refer to the property Yaakov had already taken, not what he left behind.
Lulei divrei haM"C I would say the opposite: Since there was already a gezeirah on Tumas Akum, it would follow that they were already gozeir that Akum are metamei like zavin. If so, the question is why Yaakov would bother to go back for a forgotten keli - should he not have to suspect that is was moved by an Akum, and therefore tamei through tumas heseit?
It is for this reason that Chazal concluded that he went back for pachim ketanim. This is in line with one of the well known answers (although I forget off hand who gav it) on the famous question (see Tosafos et al to Shabbos 21b) as to why the Chasmona'im did not suspect that the pach shemen had been moved by Akum: That the pach had a very narrow mouth, in which a finger could not be inserted, and the law is that any keli in which a finger cannot be inserted is not matamei b'heseit. That is what Chazal stress: pachim ketanim!
Lulei divrei haM"C I would say the opposite: Since there was already a gezeirah on Tumas Akum, it would follow that they were already gozeir that Akum are metamei like zavin. If so, the question is why Yaakov would bother to go back for a forgotten keli - should he not have to suspect that is was moved by an Akum, and therefore tamei through tumas heseit?
It is for this reason that Chazal concluded that he went back for pachim ketanim. This is in line with one of the well known answers (although I forget off hand who gav it) on the famous question (see Tosafos et al to Shabbos 21b) as to why the Chasmona'im did not suspect that the pach shemen had been moved by Akum: That the pach had a very narrow mouth, in which a finger could not be inserted, and the law is that any keli in which a finger cannot be inserted is not matamei b'heseit. That is what Chazal stress: pachim ketanim!
No comments:
Post a Comment