(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 21

CHAGIGAH 21 - Dedicated by Dovid and Zahava Rubner of Petach Tikva. May Hashem grant them and all of their offspring with joy, fulfillment, and all that they need!



(a) The reason that Rebbi Ila gives for the Reisha of our Mishnah, which forbids Toveling one Kodesh vessel inside another - is because the weight of the inner vessel will create a Chatzitzah, preventing the Tevilah of either one from being effective.

(b) The problem from the Seifa 'she'be'Kodesh, Matir u'Menagev u'Matbil ... ', is that seeing as both decrees are based on the fact that they create a Chatzitzah, why does the Tana need to mention both of them?

(c) We answer that both cases do indeed need to be mentioned. We would not know the Chumra of ...

1. ... 'Matir u'Menagev u'Matbil ... ' from that of the Reisha (prohibiting Toveling one vessel inside another) - because the latter is due to the weight, in which case we would assume that, seeing as *that* problem is non-existent in the former, the decree does not apply there.
2. ... the Reisha of the Mishnah from that of 'Matir u'Menagev u'Matbil ... ' - because there, the latter is due to the knots which become intensified in the water, whereas in the former case, the opposite is true (the water releases the pressure from the inner vessel, causing it to float). Consequently, we would assume that, seeing as the problem is non-existent, the decree does not apply there.



(a) According to Rebbi Ila Amar Rav Chanina bar Papa - the eleven Chumros listed in our Mishnah are really only *ten* (seeing as the two that we just discussed are both based on Chatzitzah).

(b) He actually divides the Mishnah into two lots of five cases.

1. 'K'li be'Toch K'li' (because of Chatzitzah), 'Achorayim ve'Toch ... ' (Mashkeh Zav ve'Zavah), 'Nosei es ha'Medras' (Medras ha'Zav), 'Bigdei Ochlei Kodesh' (Shema Yashvah Aleihen Ishto Nidah) and 'Keilim ha'Nigmarin be'Taharah' (the spittle of an Am ha'Aretz, who may be a Zav) - are all decrees because of Tum'ah d'Oraysa (as indicated).
2. 'ha'K'li Metzaref ... ', 'ha'Revi'i ba'Kodesh', 'Im Nitma'as Achas mi'Yadav, Matbil Sh'teihem' 'Ein Ochlin Ochlin Neguvin be'Yadayim Meso'avos be'Kodesh' and 'ha'Onen u'Mechusar Kipurim Tzerichin Tevilah le'Kodesh' - are all pure de'Rabbanans.
(c) The Halachic ramifications of the distinction between the two groups of Chumros is that - whereas the former group applies to 'Chulin she'Na'asu al Taharos ha'Kodesh' as well as to Kodesh, the latter group is confined to Kodesh.
(a) According to Rava - the Mishnah lists *eleven* Chumros of Kodesh over Terumah (including 'Matir u'Menagev ve'Kosher' - not included in Rav Ila's list).

(b) Out of these - the first *six* extend to Chulin she'Na'asu al Taharas ha'Kodesh, the last five do not.

(a) According to Rava, Chazal forbade Toveling one vessel inside another by Kodesh - because of a decree that one might come to Tovel pins and needles of Hekdesh inside a vessel whose mouth does not have the Shiur of 'ki'Shefoferes ha'Nod'.

(b) The Mishnah in Mikva'os teaches us - that two halves of a Mikveh that are joined by a gap in the dividing partition that is 'ki'Shefoferes ha'Nod' (a hole that is large enough for two fingers to swivel round inside it) combine to make a Kasher Mikveh.

Next daf


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