ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Chagigah 25
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 learned in our Mishnah that in Yehudah during the pressing season,
the Amei ha'Aretz were believed to say that their Hekdesh wine and oil was
Tahor. Specifically in Yehudah - because the strip of land belonging to
Nochrim that divided between them cut out any possibility of transporting
any Hekdesh from Galil to Yerushalayim (since Chazal decreed Tum'ah on Eretz
Nochrim - see Tosfos DH 'she'Retzu'ah' and Tosfos Yom-Tov).
(b) Transporting the wine or the oil in a box would not help - because the
author of our Mishnah is Rebbi, who holds that a moving Ohel does not
protect from Tum'ah.
(c) Transporting the Hekdesh in a sealed earthenware barrel would not help
either - because a sealed earthenware barrel does not protect Hekdesh from
(d) Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Yehudah, who holds that a moving Ohel protects from
Tum'ah just like one that is still, would believe the Amei ha'Aretz in Galil
on their Hekdesh wine and oil no less than those who lived in Yehudah.
(a) The Mishnah in Parah says 'Ein *(Mei) Chatas* Nitzeles be'Tzamid Pasil',
not to imply that Kodesh *is* saved - but that the Mei Chatas onto which he
has not yet poured the ashes is.
(b) Ula said that the Chaveirim would prepare Nesachim be'Taharah, in case
the Beis Hamikdash was rebuilt in their days, in spite of the strip of Eretz
ha'Amim dividing between Yehudah and the Galil - because before the
rebuilding of the Beis Hamikdash, Eliyahu will perhaps clarify that they
were not Tamei (in addition to the question 'Which Safek will Eliyahu
clarify'? it is also unclear why Eliyahu should be needed to declare it
Tahor, seeing as when Mashi'ach comes and the whole of Eretz Yisrael will
revert to us, that strip of land will no longer belong to the Nochrim).
(a) The Tana in Taharos instructs an Am ha'Aretz who has finished picking
his olives and wants to give Terumah - to leave one box of olives open for
the Kohen to see that they have not yet become Muchshar le'Kabeil Tum'ah.
(b) We did indeed just learn that he is believed anyway during the pressing
season - but this Mishnah is speaking about an Am ha'Aretz who finished
picking his olives late, after most people had already picked theirs, in
which case, he is no longer believed.
(c) When Rav Ada bar Ahavah asked Rav Nachman for an example of this - he
told him to look at his own father, who used to pick his olives late.
(a) In an attempt to answer the previous Kashya, Rav Yosef established the
Mishnah in Taharos (which does not believe the Am ha'Aretz - even during the
pressing season) in the Galil, whilst our Mishnah is confined to Yehudah.
Abaye proves him wrong from a Beraisa - which explicitly gives Eiver
ha'Yardein and the Galil the same Din as Yehudah.
(b) The Am ha'Aretz is not believed however, on wine during the
olive-pressing season, or on olives during the wine-pressing season.
(a) If two brothers, a Chaver and an Am ha'Aretz, both inherit their father,
the Chaver is permitted to make an agreement that his brother receives the
wheat and the wine which are *not* Huchshar le'Kabeil Tum'ah, whilst he
receives the wheat and the wine that *are* - because by the same species,
we say 'Yesh Bereirah' (it becomes clarified that what each one received,
was his retroactively), in which case, the Chaver has not traded in his
portion in the produce that is Tamei for the Am ha'Aretz's portion in the
produce that is Tahor.
(b) He may not, however, enter into an agreement whereby his brother takes
one kind that is *not* Huchshar le'Kabeil Tum'ah, whilst he receives another
kind that *is* - because by two kinds, we say 'Ein Bereirah, in which case,
he *is* trading in his portion in the Tamei produce for the Am ha'Aretz's
portion in the Tahor produce
(c) In the latter case, assuming that they are Kohanim, the Chaver must ...
1. ... use any oil (the liquid referred to by the Mishnah) that he received
in his inheritance, as fuel - which the Tana refers to as 'burning it'.
2. ... leave any food until the next season, when it will become permitted.
(a) He cannot leave the liquid for the next pressing-season, when it will
become permitted - because we are not talking about oil (like we initially
thought) but about another liquid such as date-beer, which has no pressing
season. In this way, we refute Rav Sheishes' proof that someone who
transgressed and accepted wine or oil after the termination of the
pressing-season is forbidden to leave it until next year's pressing-season.
(b) 'Soref ha'Lach' now means that he must literally burn (and destroy) the
(c) Neither is he able to leave it for the next Yom-Tov - because it speaks
about a commodity (possibly the date-beer that we just mentioned) that will
not last until then.
(a) Beis Hillel and Beis Shamai (in a Mishnah in Ohalos) agree that one
examines a Beis ha'P'ras (a field in which a grave was dug up) for those who
are going to bring their Korban Pesach, but not for Kohanim who are going to
eat Terumah - because Chazal upheld their decree before the less stringent
case of a Chiyuv Misah bi'Yedei Shamayim, but not before the more stringent
one of Kareis. Rashi adds the reason that Pesach has a fixed time, and the
owner cannot wait seven days until after the two Haza'os; whereas Terumah
has no fixed time and the owner can wait. This reason however, appears to
clash with the reason given by the Gemara.
Chazal said 'mi'de'Meheiman a'Kodesh, Meheiman a'Terumah' - because it would
be a disgrace for the Mizbei'ach to say that the Terumah to which the Kodesh
is attached is be'Chezkas Tum'ah, and the Kodesh is brought on the
(b) According to Rav Yehudah Amar Shmuel 'examines' means that one blows
one's way through the field. We are not concerned that he may walk over the
small bones - because even if he does, such small bones are not Metamei
be'Ohel (only Rov Minyan or Rov Binyan).
(c) Rebbi Chiya bar Aba in the Name of Ula explains the word 'examines' - to
mean that we inspect whether the field was not well trodden, because, if it
was, then the person bringing his Pesach is permitted.
(d) According to Rabah bar Ula, even a Kohen who examined the field on his
way to bring his Korban Pesach cannot rely on that to eat Terumah. Based on
our Mishnah however, that old man told Rabah bar Ula not to argue with Ula -
because we learned there that if the Am ha'Aretz says that he added Kodesh
to the barrel of wine, he is believed even on the Terumah. In that case, we
should say here too, that since the inspection helps for Pesach, it will
also help for Terumah.
(a) The Beraisa says 'Ein Ne'emanim Lo al ha'Kankanim ve'Lo al ha'Terumah'.
We have difficulty with establishing the first half of this statement -
because if this refers to jars of Kodesh, why is he not believed because of
the Kodesh that they contain; whereas if it refers to jars of Terumah, why
is it not obvious? Because if he is not believed on the Terumah that they
contain, he will not be believed on the jars either?
(b) In fact, we conclude, there are two possible ways of establishing the
Beraisa, either by empty barrels of Hekdesh throughout the year or by
barrels of Terumah during the time of wine-pressing.
(c) Not to be believed by barrels of ...
1. ... Hekdesh - means that he had poured out the Hekdesh and was now
guarding the empty barrels against Tum'ah.
2. ... Terumah - means that, even during the pressing season, the Am
ha'Aretz is only believed on the wine (in order not to deprive the Chaveirim
of the bulk of Terumah of Eretz Yisrael), but not on the barrels.
Consequently, the Chaverim must make sure that the wine is poured into their
own vessels before accepting it from the Amei-ha'Aretz.
(a) In light of what we just learned (that the Am ha'Aretz is not believed
on his barrels), our Mishnah, which says 'Kadei Yayin ve'Kadei Shemen
he'Meduma'os Ne'emanim Aleihen ... ' - must mean that he designated some of
the Tevel wine for Kodesh, in which case, he is believed not only on the
Kodesh, but also on the Terumah and on the barrels.
We learned in our Mishnah that the Am ha'Aretz is believed on the barrels of
wine (in the previous case) already seventy days before the pressing
season - placing an obligation on the tenant-farmer to start preparing the
barrels already as from seventy days before the pressing season is due to
(b) This is called 'Dimu'a' - since Hekdesh is mixed with the Tevel.
(c) Chazal believed the Am ha'Aretz in this case more than in the case of
barrels of Terumah - because it would be a disgrace for Hekdesh if either
the Terumah or the barrel was be'Chezkas Tum'ah, whilst *it* was brought on
(a) Modi'in is fifteen Mil from Yerushalayim.
(b) Chazal are lenient with regard to believing the potters on their small
vessels in the Yerushalayim area - because furnaces (to make clay vessels)
were prohibited in Yerushalayim. Consequently, certain concessions were
necessary, due to the principle that one does not issue a decree on the
community which they cannot possibly live with.
(c) If the potter is ...
1. ... from Modi'in and within - the Amei-ha'Aretz potter *is* believed.
(d) When our Mishnah says (regarding the former case) 'Hu ha'Kadar, ve'Hein
ha'Kedeiros ve'Hein ha'Lekuchin Ne'emanim' - he means that the concession is
confined ... 1. ... to the potter who brought the vessels (but another
potter, to whom he handed them, is not believed); 2. ... to the pots that
he brought with him (but not to other pots that another potter gave him);
3. ... to the Chaveirim who saw the potter coming in with his pots (but not
to other Chaveirim, who are forbidden to buy from him on the basis of what
the Chaverim who did see him, told them).
2. ... from Modi'in and without - he is *not*.