POINT BY POINT SUMMARY
prepared by Rabbi Yisrael Shaw
of Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Yerushalayim
Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld
Ask A Question on the daf
Previous daf Chagigah 23
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.
1) THE SIXTH STRINGENCY OF KODESH OVER TERUMAH: UTENSILS THAT WERE
COMPLETED WITH TAHARAH STILL NEED TEVILAH FOR KODESH, BUT NOT FOR
2. The strap of his shoe (which was a Madres of a Zav) tore,
and he placed it on top of the barrel, and it fell in and
made the wine Tamei.
(c) Question: If so, one should also be prohibited from carrying
Terumah with a Madres!?
3. At that moment, the Chachamim enacted that one may not
carry Kodesh while carrying a Madres.
(d) Answer: This is like R. Chananyah b. Akavya, who says that the
Chachamim only apply preventative enactments to the exact
situation in which the mishap occurred.
(e) Question: To what extent does this enactment apply?
1. Does this enactment apply only to a [strap of a] shoe that
is Tamei, or even to one that is Tahor?
2. Does it apply only when one is carrying an open barrel, or
even when one is carrying a closed barrel?
(i) These two questions remain unanswered.
3. What if one transgressed the enactment and carried Kodesh
while carrying a Madres (but it did not fall into the
(i) (R. Ila) The Kodesh becomes Tamei nonetheless.
(ii) (R. Zeira) The Kodesh remains Tahor.
(a) Since it says that the utensils were completed with Taharah, it
must be referring to utensils made by a Chaver.
(b) Question: If so, why do they need Tevilah?
(c) Answer: We fear that the spit of an Am ha'Aretz might have
fell onto the utensil before it was finished (and not yet fit
to become Tamei), and remained moist until the utensil was
finished (and fit to become Tamei).
(d) Question: Is our Mishnah not like R. Eliezer?
1. R. Eliezer implies that utensils completed with Taharah
require He'erev Shemesh, and not just Tevilah.
2. This is the implication of the Mishnah (Parah 5:4) in
which R. Eliezer requires only Tevilah for utensils being
prepared for use with the ashes of the Parah Adumah.
(i) He does not require that they first be made Tamei
with an actual Tum'ah in order to disprove the
(ii) The Tzedukim maintain that a Tamei person or utensil
which needs He'erev Shemesh to become Tahor could
*not* handle the Efer Parah.
(iii) In truth, though, the Efer Parah requires that such
a Tamei person or utensil have only Tevilah in order
to handle it.
(iv) According to R. Eliezer, if the utensil was not
purposely made Tamei and then used for Efer Parah
after Tevilah alone, what Heker is their against the
(v) It must be that R. Eliezer holds that all other
utensils finished with Taharah require He'erev
Shemesh (and the Heker against the Tzedukim is that
this utensil requires only Tevilah), not like our
(e) Answer (Rav): Our Mishnah could be R. Eliezer.
2) THE SEVENTH STRINGENCY OF KODESH OVER TERUMAH: A UTENSIL JOINS
ALL OF ITS CONTENTS TOGETHER FOR KODESH, BUT NOT FOR TERUMAH.
1. When Rebbi Eliezer requires only Tevilah for a utensil
prepared for use with the Efer Parah, that is because he
maintains that the Chachamim gave it a status of Tum'as
Mes on its seventh day.
2. Thus, there is a Heker against the Tzedukim, who would
require He'erev Shemesh to use such a utensil.
(a) Question: What is the source for this?
(b) Answer (R. Chanin): The source is the verse, "One bowl (Kaf
Achas)..." (Bamidbar 7:14) -- the verse considers everything
in a bowl to be joined together as one.
1. Question: Is this stringency really d'Oraisa!?
2. But a Beraisa implies that it is d'Rabanan!
(i) (Beraisa) R. Akiva added that if a Tevul Yom touched
one part of the Soles, Ketores, or Levonah, all of
it becomes Pasul.
(ii) This is clearly d'Rabanan, because R. Akiva is adding
to R. Shimon b. Beseira's ruling that if a Tamei
person touched one part of the Efer Parah, it all
(iii) R. Shimon b. Beseira's ruling is d'Rabanan, because
the verse (cited by R. Chanin) refers only to things
offered upon the Mizbe'ach, and not to Efer Parah.