מסכת שבת דף לח עמוד ב׳
מתני׳: תנור
שהסיקוהו בקש ובגבבא לא יתן בין מתוכו בין מעל גביו, כופח שהסיקוהו בקש ובגבבא הרי זה ככיריים, בגפת ובעצים הרי הוא כתנור:
The Mishna discusses a כופח and its relationship to a כירה. The Gemara discusses this and concludes that a כירה has two openings (for 2 pots)
and a כופח only has one opening (for one pot)
היכי דמי כופח, היכי דמי
כירה? אמר רבי יוסי בר חנינא כופח מקום
שפיתת קדרה אחת, כירה מקום שפיתת שתי קדרות:
Abaye… brings proof to this from a
Mishna in Keilim 7:3
אמר אביי ואיתימא רבי ירמיה אף אנן נמי תנינא, כירה שנחלקה לאורכה טהורה, לרחבה
טמאה. כופח בין לאורכו בין לרוחבו טהור:
Since the כירה
has two openings, only if it is split lengthwise is it considered unusable and
therefore not considered a כלי. If split widthwise, each opening is useable and therefore it
is still considered a כלי. Only an intact כלי is susceptible to the laws of טומאה.
Here is a picture of the כירה
which is split widthwise in which case it can become or retain טומאה. (courtesy of
hebrewbooks.org) פירוש חי על מסכת שבת, תשס״ח
If it were split lengthwise (לאורכה) the split would go through the openings, render them unable to
support a pot and useless, thereby making it no longer a כלי. If it had been טמאה it would become טהורה,
On these
scenarios Rashi comments as follows:
שנחלקה לאורכה. הרי בטלו שתי שפיתותיה, שנחלקת רחבה
לשתים, הלכך טהרה
מטומאתה שהרי ניתצה:
נחלקה לרחבה: נמצאו שתי השפיתות קימות
זו לבדה וזו לבדה
The Rashi we have as printed in the Vilna
Shas looks like this. There are no diagrams included to illustrate the words of
Rashi.
I will consider six עדי נוסח on this Rashi. Three indicate in various ways that Rashi drew a
diagram to illustrate his words, and three indicate he did not.
The three that show 1) no diagram, 2) no use of the
word כזה and 3) no empty space left, are
as follows:
3. Soncino Pesaro 1489 –
At this point, it seems clear that there was no
diagram in Rashi’s original text. Aside from that, there is no diagram
indicated in Chochmat Shlomo ( Prague 1583)
and Chochmat Manoach ( Prague 1612), both sources which often add
diagrams missing from the Bomberg editions.
The three manuscripts that contain a diagram vary
in their level of “proof” to the existence of a diagram in Rashi’s original
text.
This one does not indicate the existence of a
diagram by saying כזה and the diagram is drawn on the
side, indicating it might be of later origin. It is also on the previous page
of text of this particular Rashi.
This manuscript is one of the older
manuscripts of Rashi on Masechet Shabbat and it contains the diagram inside the
text. It still does not have the word כזה which would be normal if there
were a diagram.
Speaking about these two manuscripts,
Dr Ezra Chwat commented “It should be noted that
in both manuscripts where the diagram appears, there's no allusion in the
text.”
It was therefore a surprise to me to
find this manuscript. It contains the word כזה and leaves space for a diagram.
It even contemplates a diagram on the second Rashi.
3.Parma 2087 ( approximately 1400)
Conclusion:
Of the dozens of diagrams in Rashi
that I have studied over the past ten years, this one is the hardest for me to
tell whether it existed in Rashi’s original manuscript.
אין תגובות:
הוסף רשומת תגובה