(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 24

CHAGIGAH 23, 24, 25 - have been sponsored by a grant from a benevolent foundation based in Yerushalayim, that is dedicated to spreading awareness of Torah and Judaism.



(a) We asked on Rav Chanin, who learns 'ha'K'li Metzaref Mah she'Besocho', from the Pasuk "Kaf Achas ... ", that according to Rebbi Akiva, it is only mi'de'Rabbanan. Resh Lakish Amar Bar Kapara answers 'Lo Nitzrecha Ela li'Sheyarei Minchah' - meaning that Rav Chanin is referring to the Minchah itself, whose Tziruf K'li is d'Oraysa because it requires a K'li; whereas the Tziruf K'li de'Rabbanan of Rebbi Akiva refers to the leftovers of the Minchah, which were eaten by the Kohanim, and which did not require a K'li.

(b) This solves the problem with regard to the flour of the Menachos. Regarding the Ketores and the Levonah, which do not have any leftovers (and which Rebbi Akiva includes in his list of de'Rabbanans) - Resh Lakish explains that it speaks when the K'li on which they were placed consists of a flat piece of skin which had no sides, and to which Tziruf K'li applies only mi'de'Rabbanan, since mi'd'Oraysa, we only say it when the walls of the vessel extend above its contents.

(c) Rebbi Chiya bar Aba disagrees with Rav Chanin (with regard to Tziruf K'li' being d'Oraysa). According to him - our Mishnah, which includes Tziruf K'li as one of the decrees, is rooted in the testimony of Rebbi Akiva, and there is no such thing as Tziruf K'li d'Oraysa at all.

(a) A Mechusar Kipurim is ...
1. ... permitted to eat Terumah.
2. ... not permitted to eat Kodesh.
(b) Rebbi Yossi learns ...
1. ... that a Revi'i le'Tum'ah is Pasul le'Kodesh with a 'Kal va'Chomer' - because if a Mechusar Kipurim who is permitted to eat Terumah, is forbidden to eat Kodesh (making it Pasul), a Shelishi, who is forbidden to eat Terumah, will certainly make a Revi'i (which is Pasul).
2. ... a Shelishi is Pasul li'Terumah - because if a T'vul Yom, who is permitted to eat Ma'aser Sheini, is forbidden to eat Terumah (making it a Shelishi (Pasul), a Sheini, who is forbidden to eat Ma'aser, will certainly make a Shelishi (Pasul).
3. ... that, by Kodesh, a Shelishi le'Tum'ah is Tamei min ha'Torah (even though by Chulin, the lowest level of Tum'ah is a Sheini) from the Pasuk in Tzav "ve'ha'Basar Asher Yiga be'Chol Tamei Lo Ye'achel" - because "be'Chol Tamei" could well incorporate a Sheini (since we have learned elsewhere that a Sheini is called Tamei); yet the Torah concludes "Lo Ye'acheil.
(c) It is possible to learn a Chumra in a. from b. with a 'Kal va'Chomer' even when the Chumra does not exist in b. itself (e.g. to learn that a Shelishi makes a Revi'i ba'Kodesh from the fact that he is forbidden to eat Terumah, when by Terumah itself there is no Revi'i, only a Shelishi) - according to those who say that if, as a result of 'Dayo ... ', the 'Kal va'Chomer' will be ineffective (to learn only a Shelishi le'Kodesh - which we already know from the Pasuk), we do not apply 'Dayo ... '.

(d) Those who do not learn 'Dayo' even if, as a result, the 'Kal va'Chomer' will be ineffective, answer the Kashya - by pointing out that in reality, the Revi'i ba'Kodesh is only a Ma'alah de'Rabbanan, so it does not really matter if the Kal va'Chomer is not really valid.

(a) We learned in our Mishnah that one hand transmits Tum'ah to the other regarding Kodesh. When Rav Shizbi establishes this specifically 'be'Chiburin' - he means to say that the second hand is only Metamei Kodesh if it touches the Kodesh whilst it is still touching the first one.

(b) The reason for the decree, according to him is - because in he might come to touch the Kodesh directly with the Tamei hand.

(c) According to Rav Shizbi - if the Tahor hand touches Kodesh whilst not touching the Tamei one, the Kodesh becomes neither Tamei nor Pasul. It remains Tahor as before.

(a) According to Rebbi in a Beraisa, when the Tamei hand is dry it renders the Tahor hand a Sheini, to make the Kodesh that it touches a Shelishi - Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Yehudah says that it only renders the hand a Shelishi, to make the Kodesh a Revi'i (Pasul, but not Tamei).

(b) Abaye repudiates Rav Shizbi's explanation (establishing the Mishnah of one hand rendering the other hand Tamei by 'be'Chiburin'), from the fact that the Beraisa stresses that the hand is dry - because if the reason for the decree was the suspicion that he might touch the Kodesh with the Tamei hand, then what difference would it make whether the Tahor hand was wet or dry? Consequently, the decree must be just a 'Ma'aleh de'Rabbanan', in which case the Tana is pointing out that, even though normally, it is only through liquid that a hand becomes Tamei, and here the Tahor hand did not have contact with liquid, Chazal nevertheless declared it Tamei.




(a) According to Resh Lakish, the Tamei hand transmits Tum'ah to the other hand of the same person, but not to someone else's. Rebbi Yochanan says that the Tamei hand *transmits* Tum'ah to any other Tahor hand, whether it belongs to the same man or to someone else (though the Tahor hand, after it has become Tamei, does *not*).

(b) The Tamei hand only renders the Tahor one a Shelishi, to make Hekdesh *Pasul*, but not *Tamei*.

(c) According to Rebbi Yochanan - it is only the *first* hand that transmits Tum'ah to the second one; the second hand does not transmit Tum'ah to a third one.

(d) Resh Lakish later concedes to Rebbi Yochanan that the Tamei hand transmits Tum'ah even to someone else's. Rebbi Yochanan derives this from our Mishnah ' ... she'ha'Yad Metam'ah Chavertah le'Kodesh Aval Lo li'Terumah' - which appears to be superfluous, seeing as the Tana has already said 'u've'Kodesh Matbil Sh'teihen'. It is therefore clear that he added the second phrase to include someone else's hand.

(a) According to Rebbi Yehoshua in a Beraisa, one hand renders the other Tamei (to make it a Sheini) - according to the Rabbanan, the Tamei hand itself is a Sheini, and a Sheini cannot make a Sheini.

(b) We could explain that the Rabbanan do not mean that the one hand renders the other hand not a Sheini, but a Shelishi (in support of Rebbi Yochanan) - but that it does not make the other hand a Sheini or a Shelishi either (because they simply do not agree that that decree was ever issued.

(c) In another Beraisa, Rebbi says that one hand renders the other a Sheini to be Metamei Kodesh, but not Terumah. Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Yehudah says - that it renders the Kodesh, Pasul, but not Tamei (like Rebbi Yochanan).

(a) We learned in our Mishnah 'Ochlin Ochlin Neguvin be'Yadayim Meso'avos bi'Terumah Aval Lo ba'Kodesh'. As far as Kodesh is concerned - there is no difference between wet food and dry food, because even dry Kodesh food is subject to Tum'ah, due to 'Chibas ha'Kodesh'.

(b) Rebbi Chanina ben Antignos in a Beraisa establishes the case in our Mishnah - by someone who has Kodesh in his mouth (placed there by someone else or by himself using a spindle or a shuttle - straight wooden vessels which are not subject to Tum'ah). He now takes a radish or an onion of Chulin and wants to put it in his mouth with his dry hands which are Sh'niyos le'Tum'ah, to eat together with the Kodesh.

(c) Chazal prohibited doing this (despite the fact that the Chulin will not become Tamei) - in case he touches the Kodesh in his mouth with his Tamei hand (and Kodesh *is* subject to Tum'ah even when it is dry, as we just explained [in a.]; but in any case, the spittle in his mouth will have made it wet).

(a) It makes no difference whether the Chulin had ever been wet before or not - either way, the dry hands will not render it Tamei.

(b) Chazal necessitate Tevilah on the part of someone who was an O'nen or a Mechusar Kipurim - on the grounds that, until now, they were forbidden to eat Kodesh.

(a) When the Tana writes 'Ne'emanin al Taharas Yayin ve'Shemen Kol Yemos ha'Shanah' - he means that if the Am ha'Aretz declared the wine or the oil Hekdesh during the pressing-season, then he is believed the whole year round to say that he guarded it be'Taharah.

(b) This Mishnah lists cases where Terumah is more stringent than Kodesh. In the equivalent case by Terumah - he is only believed to say that it is Tahor during the pressing-season, but not afterwards.

(c) After the wine-pressing season has come to an end - the Am ha'Aretz should keep the barrel until the following pressing-season, when he will once again be believed.

(d) If the Am ha'Aretz says that he added a Revi'is of wine for the Nesachim to the barrel - then he is believed on the Terumah, too.

(a) Our Mishnah says - that the Am ha'Aretz is believed on barrels of wine and of oil that are 'Meduma'os' (This will be explained later in the Sugya).

(b) The Tana adds 'and seventy days before the pressing-season begins' - because it is customary to begin Toveling one's vessels for pressing the wine and the oil from then onwards.

Next daf


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