ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Chagigah 19
CHAGIGAH 19 & 20 - anonymously dedicated by an Ohev Torah and Marbitz Torah
in Ramat Beit Shemesh, Israel.
(a) We attempt to learn from the Mishnah in Mikva'os 'Gal she'Nislash, u'Vo
Arba'in Sa'ah, ve'Nafal al ha'Adam ve'al ha'Keilim, Tehorin' - that Tevilas
Adam le'Chulin does not require Kavanah.
(b) We believe that Tevilas Adam is speaking about a case when the person
did not have Kavanah - because 'Adam Dumyah le'Keilim', and by a regular
case of a wave falling on vessels, the owner did not have Kavanah.
(c) But then we suggest that maybe 'Keilim Dumya de'Adam' - meaning that
maybe Keilim speaks when the owner was waiting for the wave to fall on his
vessels and Tovel them, just like Adam, which probably speaks when the
person had Kavanah to Tovel. Needless to say, if it speaks when the owner
had Kavanah, our proof that Tevilas Adam does not require Kavanah falls
(a) If the above Beraisa was speaking in a case of 'Yoshev u'Metzapeh', the
Beraisa would be teaching us one of two Chidushim. The first, that we do not
decree Toveling at the foot of a wave because a person might come to Tovel
in a Chardelis - meaning a large collection of water, consisting of more
than forty Sa'ah, flowing down the slopes of a mountain. This is not a good
Tevilah -because one may only Tovel in rain-water when it is gathered in one
place and not moving.
(b) The second possible Chidush is - that we do not decree because he may
come to Tovel the vessels in the arch of the wave (the part that is off the
(c) We know that one cannot Tovel in the arch of a wave whose end is on the
ground - from a Beraisa, which writes this explicitly.
(d) The Tana gives the reason for the prohibition - because one is not
permitted to Tovel in the air.
(a) The Mishnah in Machshirin says that if someone places his Tamei hands
into a pool of water to withdraw some fruit that fell into it, the fruit is
*not* Muchshar le'Kabeil Tum'ah - because he is not interested in the water
(which is therefore not 'be'Chi Yutan'); whereas if he meant to Tovel his
hands, it *is* - because since he wants the water, the fruit falls into the
category of 'be'Chi Yutan'.
(b) Either way, says the Beraisa, his hands are Tahor - proving that Netilas
Yadayim does not require Kavanah.
(c) In that case, when the Tana of the Beraisa says ...
1. ... 'ha'Tovel le'Chulin, *ve'Huchzak le'Chulin*, Asur le'Ma'aser'
(implying that Chulin too, requires Kavanah) - he means that *even* if he
had Kavanah for Chulin, he is forbidden to eat Ma'aser (but not that Chulin
(d) This latter explanation is not considered a Dochek - because it is
corroborated in a Beraisa, which states 'Taval ve'Lo Huchzak, Asur
le'Ma'aser u'Mutar le'Chulin'.
2. ... 'Taval ve'Lo Huchzak, Ke'ilu Lo Taval' - he means 'Ke'ilu Lo Taval
(a) Rebbi Elazar rules that one may Tovel first and then decide for which
level of Kedushah the Tevilah should be effective.
(b) The Beraisa which says that only as long as one's feet are still in the
water may he make such a decision - speaks when he already had in mind a
lighter Kedushah, in which case, he may only change to cover a more
stringent Kedushah as long as his feet are still in the water, whereas Rebbi
Elazar speaks when he Toveled S'tam (without any Kavanah at all).
(a) Rav Pedas maintains that the author of this Beraisa must be Rebbi
Yehudah - who says that if two people went to Tovel in a Mikveh that
contained exactly forty Sa'ah of water, then, as long as the feet of the
first person are still in the water, the second one is Tahor, too; but not
if the first one had already left the water when the second one Toveled,
since the Mikveh is now short of forty Sa'ah.
(b) Some say that Rav Nachman Amar Rabah bar Avuhah established Rebbi
Yehudah when the two men were Tamei with a Tum'ah de'Rabbanan (such as those
in our Mishnah), and it is there that the Rabbanan disagree with him. If the
two men were Tamei d'Oraysa - then even Rebbi Yehudah will agree that the
second one remains Tamei in any case.
(c) The second Lashon in Rav Nachman Amar Rabah bar Avuhah maintains - that
by a Tum'ah de'Rabbanan, even the Rabbanan agree with Rebbi Yehudah that the
second person becomes Tahor if the first one's feet were still in the water,
and they argue by a Tum'ah d'Oraysa.
(d) It is the first Lashon in Rav Nachman Amar Rabah bar Avuhah which
conforms with Rav P'das (who establishes the Beraisa like Rebbi Yehudah, and
not the Rabbanan) - according to the second Lashon, the author of the
Beraisa could equally well be the Rabbanan.
(a) The underlying principle of Rebbi Yehudah, who holds that as long as the
feet of the first person to Tovel are still in the water, the second person
may Tovel there - is 'Gud Acheis' (extending the water downwards, as if it
was in the Mikveh).
(b) They asked Rebbi Yochanan a She'eilah whether, according to Rebbi
Yehudah, one may Tovel pins and needles on the head of the first man whose
feet are still in the water - which would be based on the principle 'Gud
Aseik' (extending the Mikveh upwards as if it was joined to the water [and
to the pins and needles] on the man's head).
(c) The Beraisa speaks about a case of three pools of water one above the
other in a sloping valley.
1. The top pool and the lower pool each contain twenty Sa'ah, and the middle
one, forty Sa'ah.
(d) Rebbi Yochanan tried to resolve our She'eilah with this Beraisa, where
Rebbi Yehudah quotes Rebbi Meir as saying 'Matbil be'Elyanoh' (because of
'Gud Aseik'). They repudiated his proof however, on the basis of the
continuation of the Beraisa (of which Rebbi Yochanan had not been aware)
'va'Ani Omer, be'Tachtonah ve'Lo be'Elyanoh'. Rebbi Yochanan replied I
2. The three pools are joined by a Chardelis that was flowing from one to
(a) The Reisha of our Mishnah cites *five* levels of Kedushah, listing
Chulin and Ma'aser as two of the levels. The Seifa, lists only *four* levels
(combining Chulin and Ma'aser into one level). In order to reconcile the
two - we establish the Reisha like the Rabbanan (cited above on 18b), who
distinguish between Chulin and Ma'aser, and the Seifa like Rebbi Meir, who
treats Ma'aser like Chulin in this regard.
(b) Rav Acha bar Ada amends the Mishnah so that the Reisha and the Seifa are
both learned by the Rabbanan - by amending the Seifa to contain *five*
levels, like the Reisha (adding 'Bigdei Ochlei Chulin Medras le'Ochlei
Ma'aser' to the beginning of the Beraisa).
(a) We try to prove from the fact that the Tana of our Mishnah does not
include in its list, 'Bigdei P'rushin ha'Ochlin Chuleihen be'Taharas Chulin,
Medras le'Ochlei Chuleihen be'Taharas ha'Kodesh' - that 'Chulin she'Na'asu
al Taharas ha'Kodesh, ke'Kodesh Damu' (because they are included in Kodesh).
(b) We refute it on the grounds that - even they were like Chulin (like the
opinion of the Tana Kama) or like Terumah (like that of Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi
Tzadok - who argue in a Beraisa), it would not be necessary to mention them,
because both Terumah and Chulin are already included in the list.
(c) We ultimately prove it from the Seifa of our Mishnah 'Rebbi Yochanan ben
Gudgoda Hayah Ochel al Taharas ha'Kodesh Kol Yamav, ve'Haysa Mitpachto Medra
s le'Chatas' - from which we infer 'le'Chatas In, le'Kodesh, Lo'. This can
only be due to the fact that 'Chulin she'Na'asu al Taharas ha'Kodesh,
ke'Kodesh Damu' (in which case, Bigdei Chulin she'Na'asu al Taharas
ha'Kodesh are not Medras le'Ochlei Kodesh).