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


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 Tahor.

(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 were Tamei.

(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?
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.
(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.
(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).
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 anything else.
(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 anything else.

(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 Tamei.

(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 Etzba'os.

(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 it Tamei).
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).
(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.

(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 just concluded)?




(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 Tamei.

(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.

***** Hadran Alach 'Ein Dorshin' *****

***** Perek Chomer ba'Kodesh *****


(a) One may ...
1. ... may Tovel two Tamei vessels one inside the other, to use for Terumah ...
2. ... but not to use for Kodesh.
(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).

(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 Tamei.

(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 Kohen).
(a) 'A Kohen who has Tamei hands is permitted to eat dry fruit of Terumah'. By ...
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).
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 Terumah').
(b) One is not permitted to eat Kodesh in the same circumstances.

(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 Korban.
Next daf


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