ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Chagigah 20
CHAGIGAH 19 & 20 - anonymously dedicated by an Ohev Torah and Marbitz Torah
in Ramat Beit Shemesh, Israel.
(a) According to Rebbi Yonasan ben Elazar, if a someone's shawl fell off,
and he asked his friend to hand him to him, the shawl becomes Tamei -
because one person does not guard something that is in the domain of his
friend, seeing as he does not know whether his friend is Tahor or Tamei.
Neither does friend care about being Metamei the object, since the owner
asked him to hand him the object without ascertaining that he was Tahor.
Consequently, even if both of them turn out to be Tahor, the object is Tamei
because of Hesech ha'Da'as. Note that the entire Sugya is speaking about a
'Chaver', who is generally particular about keeping his food and clothes
(b) Rebbi Yonasan ben Amram says - that if someone meant to take what he
thought were his weekday clothes and wore them, and then discovered that
they were his Shabbos clothes, the clothes are Tamei (because, we currently
contend, guarding an object from Tum'ah does not help if they turn out to be
something else than what he thought).
(c) Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Tzadok (with regard to two women who were both
'Chaveiros' - related the episode of two women who inadvertently exchanged
garments in the bathhouse and of Rebbi Akiva's ruling that both garments
(a) If a Tahor person ...
1. ... stretched his hand into a basket to take out wheat-bread and he took
out barley-bread instead - it is Tahor?
(b) This Beraisa creates a problem with the rulings of Rebbi Yonasan ben
Elazar, Rebbi Yonasan ben Amram and Rebbi Akiva (all of whom rule, under
similar circumstances, that the food or the garment, is Tamei). Rebbi
Yirmiyah establishes the Seifa of the Beraisa, which reads 'va'Asurah
mi'le'Echol' - when the owner says that he guarded it against something that
renders other things Tamei, but not against something that makes it Pasul.
2. ... was guarding a barrel, thinking it contained wine and it really
contained oil - it is Tahor from rendering other things Tamei, as the
Beraisa specifically rules.
(a) The Beraisa says - that if someone is carrying a basket of figs on his
shoulder in which there is also a shovel (used for cutting up the figs when
they stick together), and the man carrying it placed his hand inside the
basket, having in mind to guard the *basket* from Tum'ah but not the
*shovel*, the basket is Tahor and the shovel, Tamei.
(b) The shovel does not transmit Tum'ah ...
1. ... to the basket - because one vessel cannot transmit Tum'ah to another
vessel (even mi'de'Rabbanan).
(c) This distinction might also pertain to food which is stuck to the
shovel - which may not be eaten, though it will not transmit Tum'ah to
2. ... to the contents of the basket - because, Ravina explains, this
Beraisa too, speaks when he had in mind to guard against something that
rendered Tamei, but not against something that rendered it Pasul.
Consequently, the metal shovel is Pasul and may not be used for Taharos
Lechatchilah (see Tosfos DH 'Shemartihah'), but does not transmit Tum'ah to
(d) We have proved from this Beraisa - that it is possible to guard against
one aspect of Tum'ah and not against the other.
(a) The first woman who came before Rebbi Yishmael explained how she had
woven the garment be'Taharah, though she had not guarded it be'Taharah.
After Rebbi Yishmael had questioned her carefully - it transpired that what
she meant was that a woman who was a Nidah had helped her tie the thread to
the weaving-loom, and there was a suspicion that she had moved the garment
(which would have rendered it Tamei through Heset), which is why Rebbi
Yishmael declared the garment Tamei.
(b) It transpired that the second woman, who had woven a cloth be'Taharah
(even though she was a Nidah) - had used her mouth to tie a thread that had
snapped, leaving the possibility that the spittle had rendered the fabric
(c) In the first incident, when the woman claimed that she had woven the
garment be'Taharah - she meant that from the time that the woven garment was
three by three Etzba'os, nothing Tamei had touched it.
(a) In the second episode, like in the first, the woman claimed to have
woven the cloth be'Taharah - because she had been careful not to move the
fabric from the time that it reached the Shiur of three by three Etzba'os
(despite the fact that she was a Nidah).
(b) Rebbi Yishmael nevertheless declared the cloth to be Tamei - because the
spittle with which she had wetted the thread when tying it with her mouth,
may have still been wet after she had woven more than three by three
(c) The reason cannot have been because she was an Am ha'Aretz, whose
spittle (even when she is not a Nidah) transmits Tum'ah like that of a Zav -
firstly, because an Am-ha'Aretz would not have asked such a She'eilah in the
first place; secondly, because Rebbi Yishmael would not have believed her
when she told him that she had woven the cloth be'Taharah.
(d) What emerges from this Beraisa is that if not for the fact that there
was a positive suspicion that the garment and the cloth had become Tamei,
Rebbi Yishmael would have declared them Tahor, despite the fact that the
women did not have in mind to guard it be'Taharah - whereas, according to
Rebbi Yonasan ben Elazar, Rebbi Yonasan ben Amram and Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi
Tzadok it would be Tamei anyway.
(a) We resolve the problem with ....
1. ... Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Tzadok with ease, by distinguishing between his
case (of two women who took each other's garment) and the case of the basket
and of the barrel, both of which remain Tahor, as well as the two cases of
Rebbi Yishmael, as we just explained - because in his case, each woman
thought that the other woman was an Am ha'Aretz (in which case she was
Masi'ach Da'as - she took her mind off the garment, automatically rendering
(b) The Beraisa states that if someone's ass-drivers or workers were
carrying Taharos, those Taharos remain Tahor even though he moved away from
them up to the distance of a Mil. The Tana is talking about wine in an
earthenware barrel, since they cannot touch the wine (without opening it),
and the barrel does not become Tamei from the outside.
2. ... Rebbi Yonasan ben Amram with ease, by distinguishing between his case
(of a person taking his Shabbos clothes instead of his weekday ones) and the
other cases - by bearing in mind that one tends to guard Shabbos clothes
more carefully than weekday ones. Consequently, when he thought he was
taking his weekday clothes, he did not guard them properly, and his Shemirah
did not help for his Shabbos clothes.
3. ... the stringent ruling of Rebbi Yonoson ben Elazar (who speaks about
one person handing the other his shawl) with the lenient ruling of the other
cases - by establishing that one person does not guard something that is in
the domain of his friend (as we explained above in 1a).
(c) This Beraisa, which permits the Taharos of the owner in the hands of his
workers, appears to clash with Rebbi Yonasan ben Elazar - who holds that one
person does not guard something that is in the domain of his friend (as we
(a) If, in the previous case, the owner instructs his ass-drivers and his
workers to keep going, and he will follow them later - then his Taharos are
***** Hadran Alach 'Ein Dorshin' *****
(b) To answer the discrepancy between this Beraisa and Rebbi Yonasan ben
Elazar, we assume that really, a person does *not* guard what is in his
friend's domain (like Rebbi Yonasan ben Elazar). Rebbi Yitzchak Nafcha
explains that, in the Reisha of the Beraisa, the Taharos are nevertheless
Tahor - because it speaks when the owner organized the workers to Tovel.
(c) Nevertheless, in the Seifa, the Taharos are Tamei - because we are
afraid that the workers allowed their friends (who have not Toveled) to
touch the wine.
(d) The reason that we are afraid of the workers' friends touching the wine
in the Seifa is - because, seeing as the owner told them to move on without
him, they do not expect him to catch up with them too soon, so they will
allow their friends to open the barrels and touch the wine - whereas in the
Reisha, where he did not say anything, the ass-drivers and workers will be
afraid to allow their friends to open the barrels, because they are afraid
that he may use a quick route and arrive unexpectedly. See Tosfos DH 'be'Ba'
as to why we still need to say that the owner organized their Tevilah.
***** Perek Chomer ba'Kodesh *****
(a) One may ...
1. ... may Tovel two Tamei vessels one inside the other, to use for Terumah
(b) 'Achorayim, ve'Toch u'Veis ha'Tzevitah' - means that if, in addition to
the inside of the vessel, its base and its handle can be used as
receptacles, then the three are treated independently, inasmuch as if one of
them becomes Tamei, then *it* is Tamei, but the others are not (see also
22b., question 10).
2. ... but not to use for Kodesh.
(c) This Halachah is confined to a Tum'ah de'Rabbanan - but by a Tum'ah
d'Oraysa, once one part of the vessel becomes Tamei, the entire vessel is
(d) With regard to Kodesh - if one part of the vessel becomes Tamei, then
the entire vessel is Tamei, just like by a Tum'ah d'Oraysa.
(a) Someone who is carrying a Medras ha'Zav (such as his shoes) may carry
Terumah at the same time, but not Kodesh. By 'carry Terumah' - the Tana
means inside an open barrel, taking care not to place his hand inside it
(see 23a. question 2a.).
(b) When Toveling a garment to use with Kodesh, one is first obligated to
untie any knots and make sure that the garment is dry, before Toveling it
and re-tying it. If one was Toveling the same garment to use with Terumah -
he would even be permitted to tie it before Toveling it.
(c) Terumah vessels that are completed be'Taharah do not require Tevilah.
Kodesh vessels do - 'completed be'Taharah' means that, from the time that
are virtually completed (and are therefore fit for use and therefore subject
to Tum'ah), the manufacturer was careful to avoid contact with Tum'ah.
(a) 'ha'K'li Metzaref Mah she'be'Tocho le'Kodesh ... '. 'Tziruf K'li' -
means that if many items of food are contained inside a Kodesh vessels they
are considered like one piece. Consequently, if something Tamei touched one
of them, they all become Tamei, too.
(b) By Terumah we do not say 'Tziruf K'li' - but if Tum'ah touches one
piece, then it becomes a Rishon, the piece that touches it, a Sheini, and
the piece that touches it, a Shelishi.
(c) '*ha'Revi'i* ba'Kodesh, Pasul'. The corresponding Din by Terumah is -
'*ha'Shelishi* bi'Terumah. Pasul'.
(d) If one hand of a Kohen who wants to eat ...
1. ... Terumah became Tamei through a Tum'ah d'Oraysa - he is obligated to
Tovel his whole body.
2. ... Terumah became Tamei through a Tum'ah de'Rabbanan - he washes only
the hand that became Tamei.
3. ... Kodshim becomes Tamei through a Tum'ah de'Rabbanan - he must dip both
hands in a Mikveh of forty Sa'ah (though this Din is not confined to a
(a) 'A Kohen who has Tamei hands is permitted to eat dry fruit of Terumah'.
1. ... Tamei hands - the Tana means hands that are Tamei mi'de'Rabbanan
(because by a Tum'ah d'Oraysa, there is no such thing as the hands *only*
becoming Tamei and not the body, as we learned earlier).
(b) One is not permitted to eat Kodesh in the same circumstances.
2. ... dry fruit - he means that the fruit had never been wet, and was
therefore not 'Muchshar le'Kabeil Tum'ah' (see also Rashi 24b DH 'le'Inyan
(c) An Onen and a Mechusar Kipurim require Tevilah to eat Kodesh, but not to
eat Terumah. Tevilah permits ...
1. ... an Onen to eat Kodesh - only if he did not become Tamei through
contact with the Meis.
2. ... a Mechusar Kipurim to eat Kodesh - only after he has brought his