ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Chagigah 22
(a) The difference between Rava, who ascribes the prohibition of Toveling
one vessel inside another by Kodesh, as a decree (because one may come to
Tovel in a vessel with a narrow mouth), and Rebbi Ila, who ascribes it to
Chatzitah - is by a basket or a Gargusni , which will be forbidden according
to Rebbi Ila (seeing as Chatztitzah applies to it just as it applies to
other vessels), but permitted according to Rava (since they never have a
mouth which is less than a 'ki'Shefoferes ha'Nod').
(b) A Gargusni is a large basket.
(c) Rava says that if someone ...
1. ... filled a basket or a Gargusni with vessels and Toveled them - the
vessels are Tahor even as regards Kodesh (as we just explained).
2. ... divided a Mikveh with a basket or a Gargusni - his Tevilah is
invalid, since it is now like two Mikva'os, in spite of the spaces between
the wickerwork. And he compares this to a fountain (see Gilyon Maharsha)
which sprouts less than forty Sa'ah of water, and in which Tevilah is
invalid, despite the fact that it is joined to a river by means of tiny
holes in the ground.
(a) Someone who Tovels in a Mikveh which is divided by a basket or a
Gargusni is not Tahor - because he did not Tovel in a Mikvah of forty Sa'ah.
(b) If he Tovels pins and needles of Hekdesh in a vessel whose mouth is less
than a 'ki'Shefoferes ha'Nod' which itself requires Tevilah, the Tevilah is
valid - because of a 'Migu': since the Tevilah is effective as regards the
vessel itself, it is also effective as regards the pins and needles that are
(c) The Mishnah in Mikva'os states 'Keilim she'Mil'an Keilim ve'Hitbilan,
Harei Eilu Tehorin'. The Tana is referring to Terumah (it is not clear why
Rashi says this, since according to the run of the Sugya, it seems to be
talking about Kodesh - as far as Terumah is concerned, the Tevilah is valid
anyway), and the vessels are Tahor even if the mouth of the outer vessel was
less than a ki'Shefoferes ha'Nod'. When the Tana continues 've'Im Lo Taval
Mayim ha'Me'uravin, ad she'Yihyu Me'uravin ki'Shefoferes ha'Nod' - he means
that if the outer vessel itself does not require Tevilah, then its mouth
must be at least the Shiur of 'ki'Shefoferes ha'Nod' for the vessels inside
it to be Tahor.
(a) 'Sal ve'Gargusni she'Mil'an Keilim ve'Hitbilan Bein le'Kodesh Bein
li'Terumah, Tehorin'. This is the opinion of the Tana Kama of the Beraisa
(with whom Rava conforms). Rebbi Ilya holds like Aba Shaul - who says
'li'Terumah, Aval Lo le'Kodesh'.
(b) Despite the fact that Aba Shaul's reason is because of Tevilah, he
permits Toveling one vessel inside another for Terumah - because the Chaver
(who is careful to lift up the inner vessel so that it should not be
Chotzetz), will *not* accept Terumah vessels from an Am ha'Aretz.
(c) Nevertheless, Aba Shaul forbids Toveling one vessel inside the other by
Kodesh (because there, the Chaver *will* accept the vessel from the Am
ha'Aretz, to avoid 'Eivah' (falling out with him and pushing him away).
(d) 'Eivah' does not apply by Terumah - because the Am ha'Aretz can always
give the vessels to an Am ha'Aretz like himself.
(a) The Tana who holds of 'Eivah' is Rebbi Yossi - who says that one may
accept wine for the Nesachim and oil for the Menachos all the year round, to
avoid the Amei ha'Aretz going their own way, building their own Bamah and
offering on it their own Parah Adumah.
(b) Rav Papa says - that we accept testimony from Amei ha'Aretz nowadays,
following the opinion of Rebbi Yossi, who is concerned about 'Eivah'.
(c) We learned earlier that it is permitted to Tovel one vessel inside
another by Terumah, since one does not accept Terumah from an Am ha'Aretz.
've'Nichush li'She'eilah?' means - why do we not suspect that someone may
borrow a Terumah vessel from him (which was clearly the done thing, as we
shall see from the following Beraisa).
(a) Beis Hillel maintain that sealed earthenware vessels save whatever is
inside them. This Halachah incorporates two possible cases: either an
earthenware vessel containing Taharos in a room in which a dead person is
lying - or when the dead person is lying in the house, the Taharos in the
attic, and the earthenware vessel is blocking the skylight.
(b) Beis Shamai say - that the earthenware vessel saves only food, drink and
earthenware vessels from becoming Tamei.
(c) Beis Shamai declare food and earthenware vessels, Tahor, but nothing
else - because these three cannot be Toveled, and are therefore fit only for
himself (seeing as Chaveirim will not accept them from him - and he will eat
them anyway). Other vessels, on the other hand, can be Toveled, and if he is
told that they are Tamei, he will Tovel them before lending them to a
(a) Rebbi Yehoshua considered Beis Shamai's opinion to be a farce - because,
how is it possible for the earthenware vessel which is supposed to protect
the food, the drink and the earthenware vessel should be Tamei (see Rabeinu
Chananel), and its contents Tahor (because whatever is itself Tamei, does
not protect its contents from becoming Tamei)?
(b) It can be compared, says Rebbi Yehoshua - to saying that, when a Tamei
woman is kneading dough in a dish, the woman and the dish are Tamei, and the
dough, Tahor; or to a jug which is Tamei Meis that is full of liquid - that
the jug is Tamei Meis and the liquid, Tahor.
(c) He changed his tune however, when a Talmid of Beis Shamai presented him
with Beis Shamai's reason - that the food is Tahor, because if you tell him
otherwise, he will not listen to you anyway.
(d) If you would inform the Am ha'Aretz that his food was Tamei - he would
probably tell you that his food was Tahor and it was your's that was Tamei.
(a) When Rebbi Yehoshua heard that Talmid's explanation - he prostrated
himself on Beis Shamai's graves and begged for forgiveness. If the hidden
things of Beis Shamai are so correct, he declared, then how much more so
those things that are revealed.
(b) His teeth turned black from all the fasts that he undertook for the rest
of his life.
(c) We learn from Beis Shamai's response 'she'Taharaso Lecha ve'Lo' - that
Chaveirim do tend to borrow Terumah objects from Amei ha'Aretz.
(d) We nevertheless permit vessels that were Toveled inside other vessels,
without worrying that an Am ha'Aretz will subsequently Tovel his vessels
inside a vessel with a mouth that is less than the Shiur of 'ki'Shefoferes
ha'Nod' - because even if he does and a Chaver borrows it from him, the
Chaver will first Tovel it before using it.
(a) Even assuming that the borrower Tovels the vessel, Beis Hillel could not
counter Beis Shamai in the same way (by declaring *all* vessels inside the
earthenware Tamei vessels should be Tahor, since the borrower will Tovel
them anyway) - because, they are talking about Tum'as Meis, which also
requires Haza'ah on the third and the seventh days, and one does not
generally borrow vessels for as long as seven days.
(b) Abaye reconciles the fact that we do not believe Amei ha'Aretz regarding
Tevilah, with the Beraisa 'Ne'emanim Amei ha'Aretz al Taharas Tevilas Tamei
Meis' by differentiating between Tevilas Gufo and Tevilas Keilim - he is
believed regarding Tevilas Gufo, but not regarding Tevilas Keilim.
(c) Rava establishes both Beraisos by Tevilas Keilim - and the Beraisa which
says that he *is* believed speaks when he says that he did not Tovel one
K'li inside another one at all; whereas the Beraisa which says that he is
*not*, when he says that he did Tovel one vessel inside another, but not
inside a vessel with a mouth of less than a 'ki'Shefoferes ha'Nod'.
(d) We have a precedent for this from a Beraisa regarding Amei ha'Aretz with
regard to fruit that is Muchshar le'Kabeil Tum'ah - where they are believed
to say that fruit was not Muchshar le'Kabeil Tum'ah at all, but not to say
that it was Muchshar le'kabeil Tum'ah, but did not subsequently become
(a) If a Chaver claims that it is the third day since his Tum'ah, he is
sprinkled immediately - whereas an Am ha'Aretz has to wait until the third
day after his arrival, when he is sprinkled once, and then again, on the
(b) In spite of this - we believe an Am ha'Aretz when he says that he
Toveled at the end, precisely because we were so strict with him regarding
the Haza'ah. Because he will be afraid not to Tovel, in case he is made to
start all over again.
(a) In light of what we learned in our Mishnah (regarding 'Achorayim,
ve'Toch u'Beis ha'Tzevitah'), the Din of a vessel which, besides the inside
and the bottom, also has a lip, or a handle, if ...
1. ... the *back* became Tamei through a Tum'ah de'Rabbanan - the other
sections do not require Tevilah.
(b) We explained in our Mishnah that 'Beis ha'Tzevitah' means the handle,
conforming with Rav Yehudah Amar Shmuel's translation of the word. Rebbi Asi
Amar Rebbi Yochanan however - interprets 'Beis ha'Tzevitah' to mean the
grooves in the vessel in which finicky people tend to place their
2. ... the *inside* became Tamei - then the entire vessel is Tamei.
(c) According to a Beraisa quoted by Rav Bibi, there is no difference
between one part of the vessel and another, neither as regards Kodshei
Hamikdash nor as regards Kodshei ha'G'vul - which would normally mean
(d) This cannot be the case here however, seeing as our Mishnah explicitly
*does* differentiate between the parts of the vessel with regard to Terumah.
Rav Nachman therefore interprets Kodshei ha'G'vul - to pertain to Chulin
she'Na'asu al Taharas ha'Kodesh', conforming with a statement made by his
Rebbe Rabah bar Avuhah, who said that the first six cases in our Mishnah (of
which this is one) applies both to Kodesh and to Chulin she'Na'asu al
Taharas ha'Kodesh; whereas the last five are confined to Kodesh only.