(Permission is granted to print and redistribute this material
as long as this header and the footer at the end are included.)


brought to you by Kollel Iyun Hadaf of Har Nof
Rosh Kollel: Rav Mordecai Kornfeld

Ask A Question about the Daf

Previous daf

Chagigah, 25

CHAGIGAH 23, 24, 25 - have been sponsored by a grant from a benevolent foundation based in Yerushalayim, that is dedicated to spreading awareness of Torah and Judaism.


QUESTION: The Gemara proves from the Mishnah that if an Am ha'Aretz says that he designated part of the contents of the barrel as Kodesh (and is thus trusted with regard to the Shemirah of that Kodesh from becoming Tamei), he is also trusted with regard to the other items (such as Terumah and Chulin) in the barrel, even though they are not Kodesh.

RASHI explains that the reason we say that the Am ha'Aretz guards the Terumah auxiliary to his guarding of the Kodesh is because "it would be a disgrace to the Mizbe'ach to offer upon it Kodesh that is considered Tahor which was next to Terumah that is considered Tamei" (DH Migu). For this reason, even the containers in which the Kodesh are stored are Tahor, because it would be disgraceful for the Kodesh to be sitting in Tamei containers (Rashi DH bi'Metaher).

Why does Rashi say that the reason the Am ha'Aretz is trusted with regard to all of the other contents of the barrel (and the barrel itself) is because "it would be a disgrace to the Mizbe'ach?" The Gemara makes no mention of disgrace. Rather, the Gemara implies that the reason the Am ha'Aretz is trusted for all of the contents of the barrel is simply because he is guarding it in either case for the Kodesh. Since ("Migu") he is guarding it properly to protect its contents that are Kodesh, he also guards the Terumah in the barrel, and the barrel itself, properly as well! Where did Rashi learn that the reason the Am ha'Aretz is believed is because of the disgrace to the Mizbe'ach, and not simply because the Am ha'Aretz guards everything along with the Kodesh?

ANSWER: The CHIDUSHIM U'VI'URIM (DH Alma) answers that the Gemara earlier applied our Mishnah's logic of "Migu" to a person who checked a field (Beis ha'Pras) for bones (by blowing it, or by examining it to see if it was already trampled) in order to walk through it without becoming Tamei so that he may bring his Korban Pesach. After examining the field in such a manner, the Chachamim suspended the decree of Tum'ah of a Beis ha'Pras for a person if he wants to go to offer his Korban Pesach. The Gemara proposes that once he checks the Beis ha'Pras and walks through it in order to bring his Korban Pesach, then he may also eat Terumah even though he has walked through a Beis ha'Pras. "Since" the Beis ha'Pras in considered Tahor regarding the Pesach, it is Tahor as far as Terumah as well.

In that case, there is no logic upon which to rely that would tell us that since the person walking through it is bringing the Korban Pesach, the field is more Tahor than it was until now. Rather, the Chachamim suspended the Tum'ah of the field out of necessity, even though they had no reason to assume that it was any more Tahor today than it was the day before. If the reason the barrels in our Mishnah are considered Tahor is because the Am ha'Aretz guards the Kodesh that is in them and thus we trust that he guards everything else in them as well, then that logic will apply only when we have a basis for being Metaher the Kodesh (i.e. the entire barrel is Tahor because someone is guarding it better due to the Kodesh inside). This logic will not apply to the case of the Beis ha'Pras, where there is absolutely no reason to be Metaher the field just because someone wants to walk through it to bring a Korban Pesach.

Since the Gemara does compare the barrel of an Am ha'Aretz which contains Kodesh to walking through a Beis ha'Pras, Rashi learned that the reason why the Kodesh in the barrel is Tahor is *not* because we trust the Am ha'Aretz. Rather, we consider the Kodesh to be Tahor out of necessity, so that the Am ha'Aretz will not go and build a Bamah for himself (22a). Accordingly, the only reason the Terumah (that is inside the barrel along with the Kodesh) could be Tahor is because the Chachamim said that it would be disgraceful for the Kodesh to be Tahor while the Terumah next to it be considered Tamei. Likewise, in the case of walking through a Beis ha'Pras to bring the Korban Pesach, it will be disgraceful for the Korban if he is permitted to bring the Korban Pesach through the field, but he is not allowed to eat Terumah after walking through the field.

QUESTION: The Mishnah states that an Am ha'Aretz is trusted with regard to the Taharah of barrels of wine and oil that are "Meduma," not only during the season of pressing but even seventy days before it. The Gemara asks what are these barrels of "Meduma'os" for which an Am ha'Aretz is trusted? Does the Mishnah mean "Meduma" of Terumah or of Kodesh? The Gemara says that it cannot be talking about "Meduma" of Kodesh, because there is no such thing as Dimu'a for Kodesh! The Gemara answers that the Mishnah refers to a case where the Am ha'Aretz prepared his Tevel in order to take Nesachim (Kodesh) from it, in which case he protects it from Tum'ah more carefully, just like he can be trusted to protect actual Kodesh from becoming Tamei.

The Gemara's question seems to be that the term "*Dimu'a" is never used for anything except Terumah mixed into Chulin. It does not refer to Kodesh mixed with something, and therefore the term, when used by the Mishnah, must refer to Terumah mixed with Chulin, and not to Kodesh.

If this is the Gemara's question, what does the Gemara answer when it says that the Am ha'Aretz designated part of the contents of the barrel to be brought as Nesachim? How can the Kodesh that is mixed into the barrel be called "Meduma?"

ANSWERS: There are two ways in which the Rishonim explain the Gemara's question and answer. First, though, we must point out that when the Mishnah says that the Am ha'Aretz is trusted with regard to the Taharah of "Meduma," it cannot mean that he is trusted for the Taharah of Kodesh or Terumah that became mixed into Chulin. In such a case, all of the contents of the barrel would be Tamei, because before the Kodesh or Terumah fell into the barrel, the Chulin was already Tamei, so guarding it from the time that the Kodesh falls in will not help. Therefore, the word "Meduma" in the Mishnah cannot refer to normal "Meduma," (Terumah that fell into Chulin). Therefore, the Gemara originally assumes that the "Meduma" of the Mishnah must be referring to produce in its original state that was just harvested and from which Terumah has not yet been separated, as Rashi explains in the Mishnah (top of 25a). Terumah must be separated from it, and in that sense it is as if Terumah was mixed into it.

The Gemara rejects this explanation of "Meduma," because we know that an Am ha'Aretz does not protect Terumah from Tum'ah seventy days before the pressing season, but only during the pressing season itself.

The Gemara answers that the Mishnah is referring to Kodesh that is mixed together with non-Kodesh, rather than Terumah that is mixed together with Chulin. The Gemara then asks that Kodesh cannot be "Meduma." There are two ways to understand the Gemara's question:

(a) TOSFOS (inserted into the words of Rashi in our texts) explains that if the Mishnah is talking about Kodesh, then, as we pointed out above, it cannot be talking about Kodesh that became mixed with Chulin, because the Chulin would already be Tamei. Rather, it must be referring to Tevel from which Kodesh had not yet been separated. That cannot be, asks the Gemara, because there is no such thing as Tevel from which Kodesh must be separated! How can produce in its original state have Kodesh in it? (There appears to be a typist's error in the Tosfos; the words "she'Yehei ha'*Tevel* Meduma b'Socho" should read "she'Yehei ha'*Kodesh* Meduma b'Socho.")

The Gemara answers this question by saying that the Tevel in the barrel contains produce, part of which the Am ha'Aretz *intended* to be Makdish to be brought as Nesachim. Therefore, until he separates the Kodesh from the barrel, he guards the entire barrel from Tum'ah.

According to the Gemara's conclusion, when the Mishnah mentions "Meduma," it has nothing to do with Terumah; in fact, the contents of the barrel could even be produce from which Terumah was already separated. Rather, the contents of the barrel are called "Meduma" because it is produce from which the Am ha'Aretz intends to separate Kodesh. Although it is unusual to find the term "Meduma" referring to Kodesh mixed with Chulin (or any other mixture other than Terumah in Chulin), we nevertheless find precedents for this usage of the term in TOSFOS in Zevachim (88a, DH Min), who says that mixtures containing Orlah and mixtures containing Kelayim can also be called "Meduma." Tosfos there probably learned our Gemara the way Tosfos printed in our Rashi suggests, that the word "Meduma" does not always refer to Terumah (see TUREI EVEN 24b DH Ne'emanin, and RASHASH there).

(b) However, when RASHI (DH b'Metaher) explains the Gemara's answer (that the Am ha'Aretz planned to separate Kodesh from the barrel), he mentions that the contents of the barrel are "Chulin, *Terumah*, and Kodesh." Why does Rashi mention that the barrel has Terumah mixed into it? According to the preceding explanation, the Gemara's answer has nothing to do with Terumah; the Gemara is looking for a case of Chulin and *Kodesh* mixed together, and not for Terumah mixed in with it.

As the TOSFOS RID explains, Rashi apparently understood the question of the Gemara differently. According to Rashi, the Gemara was asking how can the Mishnah call Kodesh mixed with Chulin "Meduma," when the only item of Isur that is called "Meduma" in a mixture is Terumah when mixed with something else.

The Gemara answers that there is *also* Terumah mixed into this mixture of Chulin and Kodesh, and *that* is why the entire mixture is called "Meduma." The Am ha'Aretz set aside his Tevel in order to separate Kodesh from it to be used for Nesachim. It is called "Meduma" because it still contains Terumah that has not yet been separated from the Tevel. The Am ha'Aretz guards the entire mixture because it has Kodesh designated in it.

Why, though, should the Mishnah mention "Meduma" and say that there is Terumah mixed in with the Tevel, if the Terumah has nothing to do with why the Am ha'Aretz is guarding the barrel from Tum'ah (he guards it because it contains Kodesh, and not because it contains Terumah)? The answer is that the Am ha'Aretz is trusted only if he intended to separate Kodesh from the produce from the very start of its production, from the time that it was harvested, as we pointed out above. Therefore, the Mishnah calls it "Meduma," or Tevel with Terumah still in it, to show that it has been guarded from the beginning of its production.

Next daf


For further information on
subscriptions, archives and sponsorships,
contact Kollel Iyun Hadaf,