(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 26

CHAGIGAH 26 - Dedicated in honor of Mrs. Gisela Turkel by her family, may she be blessed, in the Zechus of Talmud Torah d'Rabim, with good health and long years. Herself a devotee of Torah study, may she continue to learn and ask questions until 120!


(a) Gaba'in who entered one's house, as well as thieves who returned vessels that they stole, are believed to say that they did not touch Kodesh.
Who are Gaba'in? Why did they enter the house?

(b) Are they also believed if they say that they did not touch ...

  1. ... Terumah?
  2. ... Mei Chatas?
(c) The Beraisa says that if Gaba'in entered the house, everything in the house is Tamei.
How do we reconcile the Mishnah with the Beraisa? How does the Beraisa speak?

(d) What are the Gaba'in believed to say even in the case of the Beraisa?

(a) Rebbi Yochanan and Rebbi Elazar argue over the reason for the Din in the Beraisa. One of them explains that it is because the Gaba'in are afraid of the Nochri.
What reason does the other one give?

(b) What is the difference between the two reasons?

(a) How does Rav Pinchas reconcile our Mishnah, which believes the thieves with regard to Kodesh, with the Beraisa, which declares Tamei wherever the thieves trod?

(b) Why is this answer really evident from the Lashon of our Mishnah?

(c) The Tana of the Beraisa, commenting on our Mishnah, explains that in Yerushalayim, they are believed on large vessels with regard to Kodesh.
How about small ones?

(d) The reason that Chazal were more lenient in Yerushalayim than anywhere else is because furnaces were forbidden in Yerushalayim, as we explained earlier.
What concession did they make regarding small vessels but not by large ones? Why is that?

4) What does Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi learn from the Pasuk in Shoftim "va'Ye'aseif Kol Ish Yisrael el ha'Ir ke'Ish Echad Chaveirim"?


(a) According to Rebbi Yehudah, a Chaver who opens a barrel of wine to sell on Yom-Tov or starts selling his dough, may continue selling it after Yom- Tov.
What do the Chachamim say? Why is that?

(b) Rebbi Ami and Rebbi Yitzchak Nafcha were discussing whether, according to the Chachamim, after Yom-Tov, the Chaver is permitted to leave the remainder of his barrel of wine or dough for the following Yom-Tov and sell it then. What is the reason of the one who says that he ...

  1. ... may?
  2. ... may not?
(c) One Beraisa says 'Yanichenah', another says 'Lo Yanichenah'.
How do we interpret the latter Beraisa, to avoid establishing the Machlokes as being equivalent to that of Rebbi Ami and Rebbi Yitzchak Nafcha? Who is its author?

(d) And who is the author of the first Beraisa?

(a) After Yom-Tov, the Kohanim would Tovel all the holy vessels, because they had been touched by Amei ha'Aretz, who are generally considered to be Tamei. Why would they not do this (until after Shabbos) if the last day of Yom-Tov fell on Thursday?

(b) According to Rebbi Yehudah, they would not do it either if it fell on Wednesday.
Why not?

(c) What would they warn the Kohanim Amei ha'Aretz on Yom-Tov (see Tosfos Amud 2 DH 'she'Lo')?

Answers to questions



(a) How did they account for the possibility of the holy vessels becoming Tamei (and therefore temporarily unusable)?

(b) Which were the only two vessels in the Beis-Hamikdash that did not require Tevilah after contact with Tum'ah?

(c) According to Rebbi Eliezer, this was because they are considered joined to the ground.
What do the Chachamim say?

(a) According to the Beraisa, they would warn the Kohanim not to touch the Shulchan or the Menorah.
Why does the Tana of our Mishnah omit the Menorah?

(b) What does the Tana of the Beraisa learn from the Pasuk in Terumah "ve'es ha'Menorah Nochach ha'Shulchan"?

(c) Then how does the Tana of our Mishnah (who does not learn the Hekesh) explain the Pasuk?

(a) Why do we initially contend that the Shulchan should not be subject to Tum'ah? What size K'li are we talking about?

(b) What does Resh Lakish learn from the Pasuk in Terumah (with regard to the placing of the Lechem ha'Panim) "al ha'Shulchan ha'Tahor"? Seeing as it was not normally carried when it was full, why *is* the Shulchan subject to Tum'ah?

(c) What miracle were they demonstrating?

(a) The Tana Kama of a Beraisa says that if a table or a folding-chair broke or was overlaid with marble, it remained Tamei, provided sufficient space remained on the part that was not broken or overlaid, to place cups.
What does Rebbi Yehudah say?

(b) What principle governs the opinions of both Tana'im?

(c) What do we learn from this Mishnah with regard to a vessel that is overlaid?

(d) In that case, why do we need to say that the Shulchan was Tamei because they used to pick it up (as we explained earlier)? Why will it not suffice to say that it was subject to Tum'ah because it was overlaid with gold (which is a metal, and would therefore have been subject to Tum'ah, even if it had not been carried when it is loaded)?

(a) What distinction does Resh Lakish make between valuable vessels and ordinary ones regarding the Din of Tzipuy Keilim?

(b) What does Rebbi Yochanan say?

(c) Is there any difference according to him, between whether one overlays the rim or not?

(d) According to Resh Lakish, how would we answer the Kashya that we just asked in the previous question (Why will it not suffice to say that it was subject to Tum'ah because it was overlaid with gold?)

Answers to questions

Next daf


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