Ohalos, Chapter 6, Mishnah 2. The theme running through this chapter is the rule that a person and keilim can serve as an ohel to carry tumah, but they can never serve as a barrier to stop it. As the previous Mishnah taught, ein adam vekeilim na'asim ohalim letaheir: neither a human being nor a vessel is ever the thing that shields something from tumah. Our Mishnah now takes that principle and applies it to three very practical situations, and in each one the question is exactly the same: when the tumah was stopped, what actually stopped it?
Kovrei hameis passing under the achsadrah
The Mishnah opens with a funeral procession: "Kovrei hameis shehayu ovrim be'achsadrah". A group is on its way to fulfill the mitzvah of burying a meis, the chesed shel emes, and their route takes them through an achsadrah. The word achsadrah has come up many times in Mishnayos: it is an open area covered by a roof, a kind of porch. In our case, this achsadrah stands directly in front of the doorway of a house.
Picture what is about to happen. Once the meis is carried in under that roof, the tumah fills the entire space beneath the covering. If the door of the house is standing open, the tumah does not stop at the threshold: it travels straight inside and renders everything in the house tamei.
So where is the shailah? Everything in the house should simply be tamei. The Bartenura fills in the picture. While the levayah was still approaching, one of the people accompanying the meis realized what was coming, ran ahead, and managed to shut the door before the mittah with the meis was brought in under the roof of the achsadrah. He shut it precisely in order to keep the tumah out, and then he secured it with the lock so that it would stay shut. On that scenario the Mishnah teaches a fascinating halachah.
The words are: "veheigif echad meihen es hadeles usmacho bemaftei'ach". One of those escorting the meis pushed the door closed before the meis itself came under the achsadrah, and "usmacho bemaftei'ach". Literally, somech means to lean, which would suggest that he propped something up against the door to hold it in place. The meforshim, however, explain the phrase to mean simply that he locked the door so that it should remain closed.
And then the ruling: "Im yachlah hadeleis la'amoid bifnei atzmah, tahor". If this was a door that would have stayed closed on its own even had he not turned the lock, the house is tahor. "Ve'im lav", but if this was the kind of door that would have swung back open by itself, so that the only reason it remained shut is the lock, the din is tamei.
Let us make sure the picture is clear. He ran ahead thinking, "The meis is about to come under the achsadrah and everything in that house will become tamei!" He pulled the door closed, and then he locked it. Why lock it? Sometimes a person locks a door because otherwise it will not hold and will swing open. And sometimes the door is the type that clicks into place and would have stayed closed perfectly well on its own, and he locked it for a different reason entirely: so that nobody should decide at the last second, "Let me have a look at the levayah," pull the door open, and in one moment turn the whole house tamei.
Hence the two halves of the halachah. If the door would have held closed even without the lock, tahor. But if the door owes its closed position entirely to the lock, tamei. Why? Because in that case it is not really the door that is holding back the tumah, it is the lock. The Bartenura gives us the operating rule: kol davar hanismach bekeilim eino choitzetz bifnei hatumah, anything that stands only because a keli is supporting it is not a barrier against tumah. This flows from what we learned earlier, ein adam vekeilim na'asim ohalim letaheir: not a person, and not a vessel.
One might object: earlier we were speaking about the roof of an ohel, that a person or a keli forming the covering does not block tumah. Here we are dealing with a door, which is part of the house! True, but consider: this particular door is worthless without the lock, since it would fly open on its own. The real barrier, then, is the lock. A lock is a keli, and a keli cannot be choitzetz bifnei hatumah.
The Tosafos Yom Tov cites a noticeably different pshat from the Rambam. According to that reading, the man who ran ahead physically held the door shut, keeping the bolt in place with his own hand, as if he had bolted it and then held on to the bolt. Now ask why he needed to hold on. If the lock was so poorly made that letting go would have allowed the door to open, then the one truly blocking the tumah is the man, not the door, and a person cannot block tumah. But if the lock was of a kind that would have held the door in place anyway, then the same conclusion follows as in our first explanation: even though he was pressing against the door, it is the door that is doing the blocking, and that is effective. Take a look inside the Tosafos Yom Tov. Either way, let us move on.
The barrel of dried figs and the box of straw
The Mishnah continues with the identical halachah in a new setting: "chaviyah shel geroigros o kupah shel teven shenesuynos bachalon". A chaviyah is a barrel, here filled with geroigros, dried figs; or a kupah, a box, filled with teven, straw. These were set into a window, bachalon. The window connects two rooms, and in one of them there is a kezayis min hameis. The window has been sealed completely, or at least closed down to an opening smaller than a tefach, by means of these containers.
The ruling: "Im yecholin hagroigros vehateven la'amoid bifnei atzman". Suppose the figs or the straw were packed so tightly that even if you removed the barrel and simply stuffed the contents into the window they would have held their position. Then they function as a genuine chatzitzah, a cutoff through which the tumah cannot pass, and whatever is in the other cheder, the room without the meis, is tohorin, tahor. "Ve'im lav", but if they were not packed tightly and without the barrel they would come tumbling down, then ask yourself what is really sealing that window. The barrel. And a keli cannot block tumah, therefore temei'in.
Here comes one of those rare moments when I have to tell you that I am hoping these dried figs are rotten. Not fresh: rotten. The Bartenura requires that they be eino royi le'achilas adam o beheimah, unfit as food for a person or for an animal, and the same for the straw. Why should I want them spoiled? Because only then do I know that they are staying in that window for good. Once they have no other purpose, placing them in the window means I put them there as insulation and I intend for them to remain. But if they are still royi la'achilah, still edible, then I never installed them as a seal at all: I am storing them there as if on a shelf, and I will pull them out the moment I need them. Something I may reclaim at any time is not a chatzitzah before the tumah.
The Tosafos Yom Tov adds a further condition regarding the straw. Even once it has rotted to the point that an animal would take no interest in it, it must also contain thorns and be damp. If there are no thorns in it, the straw still has a use: you tread it and mix it into lime, and that is how bricks were made. And if it is bone dry, it can be burned as fuel. Only straw that is rotten, moist and full of thorns is good for absolutely nothing: the animal will not eat it because it is rotten, it cannot go into the bricks because of the thorns, and it cannot serve as fuel because it is wet. Regarding the dried figs it is enough that they simply be rotten; the teven must be rotten, moist and thorny. That is how I know it is staying put. And even then, we still need that if the barrel were removed, the figs or the straw would remain standing in the window.
Incidentally, how do we know that straw was mixed into bricks? Recall Paroh's decree to the Yidden: go gather your own straw, produce your own bricks, and do not reduce the quota, the same number of bricks as when the straw was supplied to you.
A wall built of jugs
The Mishnah's final case: "Bayis shechatzatzo bekankanim". A man partitioned his house with kankanim, jugs of earthenware. Perhaps you have seen a wall built out of Lego, or out of milk crates. This fellow built his wall out of jugs, stacking them on their sides from the floor up to the ceiling, with their mouths facing toward the side where the meis is. Naturally such a wall is full of gaps, so "vatach betyach", he smeared the openings shut with a plaster, filling in the spaces from the inside and from the outside.
The Bartenura clarifies an important point. Had he turned the jugs the other way, with their backs toward the room containing the meis and their mouths facing the clean room, the jugs themselves could have served as a chatzitzah, since these are klei cheres and a keli cheres does not become tamei through its outer surface. Properly packed, such a wall would have held back the tumah. But that is not our case. Here the mouths of the jugs face the meis, and a keli cheres does become tamei from within, so the tumah enters the kankan. The jugs therefore cannot be mafsik. The only remaining candidate is the plaster he smeared over them: perhaps the plaster itself counts as a wall.
So the Mishnah says it depends: how thick, how sturdy, is that plaster? "Im yachol hatyach la'amoid bifnei atzmo", if the plaster could stand on its own, meaning that were you to pull out the jugs the plaster would remain in place, then tahor. Forget the kankanim; I have a plaster wall. "Ve'im lav", but if removing the jugs would leave the plaster crumbling to the ground, the din is tamei. The plaster is not the wall, the jugs are, and jugs will not do the job of being mafsik the tumah.
Reviewing the Mishnah
Three cases, one idea. A levayah is about to pass with the meis under an achsadrah standing in front of an open doorway. One of those escorting the meis ran ahead, shut the door and locked it, or, according to the other pshat, held it shut himself. If the door would have stayed closed on its own, without the lock and without a person leaning on it, he has saved everything inside the house from tumah. But if the door is closed only thanks to the lock or only thanks to the man holding it, neither a person nor keilim can hold back tumah: adam and keilim can form an ohel to convey tumah, never to be choitzetz bifnei hatumah.
Then two rooms, a kezayis min hameis in one of them, and a window between them stopped up with barrels of dried figs or boxes of straw. If the contents were packed so firmly that they would have stayed in place even without the containers, they are a chatzitzah and the tumah is stopped. If the contents would have collapsed without the containers, then the barrels are doing the blocking, and a keli cannot block. The Bartenura added the requirement that the figs be rotten, and the straw is more demanding still: rotten so no animal will eat it, damp so it cannot be burned, and thorny so it cannot be worked into lime and bricks. Why do we want them useless? Because only then will he leave them there as insulation and be mevatel them to the window. Anything he still has a use for could be taken back at any moment, and what he does not intend to leave in place is no chatzitzah.
Finally, a man who partitioned between two spaces with a wall of kankanim, their mouths facing the meis. Had the backs of the jugs faced the meis, that is the gav of a keli cheres, which is not mekabel tumah, and it would have been a hefseik. With the mouths facing the meis the jugs certainly cannot be mafsik. What he did was smear the wall with plaster on both sides, so everything hinges on how strong that plaster is. If pulling out the jugs would send the plaster crumbling down, the plaster is no wall, and the jugs cannot serve as a chatzitzah, so the far room is tamei. But if the plaster is thick and sturdy enough to stand even without the jugs, the plaster is the chatzitzah, and everything on the other side of that wall, in the room without the meis, remains tahor.