[Avodah] www.crcweb.org/SchachMatFencing2013.pdf

[Micha Berger]

On Wed, Sep 18, 2013 at 08:37:06AM +0300, Marty Bluke wrote:
: I don't think this is related to teh Chazon Ish at all (and neither
: does R' Frank in Mikraei Kodesh). In the case I described above you
: have something that is kasher schach that is resting on a davar
: hamekabel tuma. Why should you arbitrarily say that it isn't called
: schach but a maamid? ...

Because it's NOT kosher sekhakh if it's resting on something that is
meqabel tum'ah. Your middle sentence is a self-contradiction. And that's
what keeps us from saying the support poles are sekhakh, only maamidim.

Since we hold the maamid concept is only one step deep, the maamidim can
be resting on a davar shemeqabeil tum'ah and still be okay as a maamidim.
(But, again, not as sekhakh.)


Another way of looking at it:

I think you're trying to include the beams in "the sekhakh" before
assessing where they rest, and thus putting the entire sekhakh as a unit
into the question of kosher or pasul. But who said that if we invalidate
one subset of the sekhakh the whole sekhakh would be pasul, anyway?

So the beams are pasul for sekhakh (because of the maamid) and yet still
valid for being a maamid (since they themselves are not meqablim tum'a)
the rest of the sekhakh is judged, each piece on its own, as kosher.


:                      The Chazon Ish goes much further, The Chazon Ish
: holds that you can't even use metal screws to hold the walls together.

The CI holds that ma'amid does not only go to one level of
causation. Since the sekhakh rests on the walls, or on wood that rests
on the walls, the walls are maamid, and since they in turn are ma'amidim
via the screws, the screws are maamidim the sekhakh as well (by 2 steps
of causation).

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             It's never too late
micha at aishdas.org        to become the person
http://www.aishdas.org   you might have been.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                      - George Eliot