(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 19

CHAGIGAH 19 & 20 - anonymously dedicated by an Ohev Torah and Marbitz Torah in Ramat Beit Shemesh, Israel.


(a) What do we attempt to learn from the Mishnah in Mikva'os 'Gal she'Nislash, u'Vo Arba'in Sa'ah, ve'Nafal al ha'Adam ve'al ha'Keilim Tehorin'?

(b) What makes us believe that Tevilas Adam is speaking about a case when the person did not have Kavanah?

(c) But then we suggest that maybe 'Keilim Dumya de'Adam'.
What does that mean? Why will we then have no proof that Tevilas Adam does not require Kavanah?

(a) If the above Beraisa was speaking in a case of 'Yoshev u'Metzapeh', the Beraisa would be teaching us one of two Chidushim. The first, that we are not Gozer that a person might come to Tovel the vessels in a Chardelis. What is a 'Chardelis'? Why is Tevilah in a Chardelis not effective?

(b) What is the second possible Chidush?

(c) From where do we know that one cannot Tovel in the arch of a wave whose end is on the ground?

(d) What reason does the Tana give for the prohibition?

(a) The Mishnah in Machshirin says that if someone places his Tamei hands into a pool of water to withdraw some fruit that fell into it, the fruit is *not* Muchshar le'Kabeil Tum'ah, whereas if he meant to Tovel his hands, it *is*.
Why the difference?

(b) What will be the Din with regard to the state of his hands in both cases? What does this prove?

(c) In that case, what does the Tana of the Beraisa mean when he says ...

  1. ... 'ha'Tovel le'Chulin, *ve'Huchzak le'Chulin*, Asur le'Ma'aser' (implying that Chulin too, requires Kavanah)?
  2. ... 'Taval ve'Lo Huchzak, Ke'ilu Lo Taval'?
(d) Is this latter explanation considered a Dochek (a forced answer)?
(a) May one Tovel first and then decide for which level of Kedushah the Tevilah should be effective?

(b) Then how will we explain the Beraisa which says that only as long as one's feet are still in the water may he make such a decision?

(a) Rav Pedas maintains that the author of this Beraisa must be Rebbi Yehudah.
What does Rebbi Yehudah say with regard to two people who went to Tovel in a Mikveh that contained exactly forty Sa'ah of water?

(b) Some say that Rav Nachman Amar Rabah bar Avuhah established Rebbi Yehudah when the two men were Tamei with a Tum'ah de'Rabbanan (such as those in our Mishnah), and it is there that the Rabbanan disagree with him.
What will both Tana'im then hold if the two men were Tamei d'Oraysa?

(c) What is the second Lashon in Rav Nachman Amar Rabah bar Avuhah?

(d) Which of the two Leshonos conforms with Rav P'das?

(a) What is the underlying principle of Rebbi Yehudah, who holds that as long as the feet of the first person to Tovel are still in the water, the second person may Tovel there?

(b) They asked Rebbi Yochanan a She'eilah whether, according to Rebbi Yehudah, one may Tovel pins and needles on the head of the first man whose feet are still in the water.
What principle does this involve?

(c) The Beraisa speaks about a case of three pools of water one above the other in a sloping valley.
How ...

  1. ... much water does each pool contain?
  2. ... are the pools joined?
(d) Rebbi Yochanan tried to resolve our She'eilah with this Beraisa, where Rebbi Yehudah quotes Rebbi Meir as saying 'Matbil be'Elyanoh'.
How did they repudiate his proof? What did Rebbi Yochanan reply to that?
Answers to questions



(a) The Reisha of our Mishnah cites *five* levels of Kedushah, listing Chulin and Ma'aser as two of the levels.
How do we reconcile this with the Seifa, which lists only *four* levels, and does not separate them? Who is the author of the Reisha and who is the author of the Seifa?

(b) How does Rav Acha bar Ada amend the Mishnah so that the Reisha and the Seifa should be learned by the same author?

(a) What do we try to prove from the fact that the Tana of our Mishnah does not include in its list, 'Bigdei P'rushin ha'Ochlin Chuleihen be'Taharas Chulin Medras le'Ochlei Chuleihen be'Taharas ha'Kodesh'?

(b) How do we refute it?

(c) So how do we ultimately prove it from the Seifa of our Mishnah 'Rebbi Yochanan ben Gudgoda Hayah Ochel al Taharas ha'Kodesh Kol Yamav, ve'Haysa Mitpachto Medras le'Kodesh'?

Answers to questions

Next daf


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