Revach L'Neshama http://revach.net/ RSS feed for - Section: DAF YOMI Copyright 2007, Revach L'Neshama en-US Revach L'Neshama Logo 144 31 http://revach.net/img/small_header.jpg http://revach.net/ info@revach.net Mon, 29 Sep 2014 03:00:00 -0700 240 Chagigah 22 - SUMMARY Rava says that the Mishnah mentions eleven Ma'alos, the first six apply both to Kodesh and Chulin that are eaten b'Taharas ha'Kodesh, while the last five Ma'alos are applicable only to Kodesh. The practical difference between Rava and R. Ila is immersing a utensil inside a basket. (1) If a Mikvah is divided by a basket into two undersized Mikva'os of less than 40 Se'ah each, an immersion in such a Mikvah is not valid. (2) Even though an immersion of one utensil inside a utensil that has an opening smaller than the tube of a leather flask is not a valid immersion, but if the outer utensil is Tamei, the immersion would be valid for both the outer and inner utensil. Immersing one utensil inside another is prohibited for Kodesh because we are afraid that an Am ha'Aretz will see a Chaver doing so and will subsequently do it himself. We accept Kodesh from an Am ha'Aretz because otherwise it will breed resentment. (3) R. Yosi says everyone is trusted regarding the Taharah of wine (for Nesachim) and oil (for Menachos) for the entire year so that people will not build their own altar and burn their own Parah Adumah. (4) Beis Hillel holds that an earthenware utensil protects from Tum'as ha'Mes. Beis Shamai holds that it only protects food, liquids and other earthenware utensils. A student of Beis Shamai explained that the reason for the stringency of Beis Shamai is because the utensils of an Am ha'Aretz are Tamei and do not protect its contents. (5) R. Yehoshua teeth blackened as a result of his constant fasting as repentance for speaking disrespectfully about Beis Shamai. When a Chaver borrows a utensil from an Am ha'Aretz, he immerses it in a Mikvah prior to using it. An Am ha'Aretz is believed if he tells us that he never immersed one utensil inside another. However, he is not believed to say that he did not immerse the utensil inside another utensil with an opening less than the size of a tube of a leather flask. A Chaver that arrives for the sprinkling of the Parah Adumah (and says that it is day #3) is believed, but an Am ha'Aretz is not believed until he counts day #3 and day #7 in front of us.(6) If the back of a utensil came into contact with liquid that is Tamei, only that back of the utensil becomes Tamei, but if the inside of the utensil came into contact with Tamei liquid, the entire utensil becomes Tamei. (7)
 
**A BIT MORE**
1. According to R. Ila, the immersion is invalid for the reason that the inside utensil will weigh down on the basket. According to Rava the immersion is valid because there is no concern that the basket will not have an opening less than the size of a tube of a leather flask. 2. The reason is that even though the basket is porous, the entire earth is also porous yet we are still required to have a minimum of forty Se'ah in the same place. 3. We do not accept Terumah from an Am ha'Aretz and there is no concern for resentment because the Am ha'Aretz will simply give his Terumah to his fellow Am ha'Aretz that is a Kohen. 4. It is in accordance with the reasoning of R. Yosi that we accept testimony from an Am ha'Aretz. 5. The Am ha'Aretz is not willing to heed the Chachamim regarding the Tum'ah of food, drink and earthenware utensils therefore Beis Shamai is only stringent regarding regular utensils that could be purified in a Mikvah. 6. As a result of our stringency with an Am ha'Aretz regarding counting day #3 and day #7, the sages enacted a leniency and trusted him if he says he purified himself from Tum'as Mes. 7. This applies to a utensil that is used for Terumah, however with regards to a utensil that is used for Kodesh we do not differentiate between the different parts of the utensil and if any part of the utensil came into contact with liquid Tamei the entire utensil becomes Tamei.

]]>
Chagigah 22 - INSIGHTS R. Yosi states the reason why everyone is trusted regarding the Taharah of wine (for Nesachim) and oil (for Menachos) the entire year -- so that people will not build their own altar and burn their own Parah Adumah. The Turei Even says that the burning of the Parah Adumah has no relevance to trusting them regarding wine and oil. Instead it is an explanation for the Tosefta that is brought down in Tosfos that states that an Am ha'Aretz is trusted to guard the Parah Adumah. The reason why he is trusted is because otherwise he may decide to burn his own Parah Adumah. Aba Shaul says in the Beraisa that one may immerse a utensil inside a basket for Terumah but not for Kodesh. The Gemara asks why this prohibition doesn't apply to Terumah. The Turei Even asks, why is the Gemara asking that it should also be prohibited for Terumah, the Mishnah lists ten stringencies that apply to Kodesh but not to Terumah, yet the Gemara only asked regarding this stringency that it should apply to Terumah as well. Why is this stringency different than the others? The Turei Even answers that the stringency of immersing one utensil inside the other is different than the other stringencies because there is an actual concern for a Chatzitzah; it is not just simply a Ma'alah. Therefore the Gemara asks that we should be stringent regarding Terumah as well.

]]>
Chagigah 22 - HALACHA If a utensil is immersed inside another utensil that is Tamei, even if the opening in the outer utensil is tiny, as long as the water gets in through the opening it is a valid immersion for both utensils. The reason is that since the immersion is valid for the outer utensil it is valid for the inner utensil as well. If the utensils are immersed on their side or if the outer utensil is Tahor the immersion is only valid if the outer utensil has an opening that is the size of the tube of a leather flask. It is permitted to immerse utensils inside a basket, since the basket is porous, and it is better than a utensil that has an opening that is smaller than the tube of a leather flask (Shulchan Aruch YD 201:9 )

]]>
Chagigah 21 - SUMMARY It is permitted to immerse one utensil inside another for the purpose of using it for Terumah, but for Kodesh it is not valid because of the concern that the inside utensil may weigh down on the outside one and cause a Chatzitzah according to R. Ila. A garment of Kodesh must be untied and dried out before immersion in the Mikvah because of the possibility of a Chatzitzah. Both the Reisha and the Seifa of the Mishnah have to do with Chatzitzah, however both cases are needed. (1) R. Ila was consistent with his reasoning when he said that the Mishnah mentions ten Ma'alos that apply to Kodesh but not to Terumah. (2) The first five Ma'alos are applicable to both Kodesh and Chulin that are eaten b'Taharas ha'Kodesh, while the last five Ma'alos are applicable only to Kodesh. (3) Rava says that the prohibition of immersing one utensil inside another for Kodesh is because of the concern that one might immerse needles inside a utensil that has an opening that is smaller than the tube of a leather flask. (4)
 
**A BIT MORE**
1. If the Mishnah had only mentioned the first case regarding immersing one utensil inside another, I would think we are stringent only in that case because the weight of the inside utensil causes a Chatzitzah. If the Mishnah would have only mentioned the second case regarding untying and drying out a garment of Kodesh prior to its immersion in the Mikvah, I would think we are stringent only in that case because a knot becomes tighter in the water and may be a Chatzitzah. However in the case of immersing one utensil inside the other there is no possibility of Chatzitzah because the water lifts up the inside utensil; therefore the Mishnah needs to mention both cases. 2. The Mishnah actually mentions eleven Ma'alos, however the two that concern Chatzitzah are regarded as the same Ma'alah. 3. The first five Ma'alos are applicable to both Kodesh and Chulin that are eaten b'Taharas ha'Kodesh, because they are related to Tum'ah d'Oraisa. The last five Ma'alos are applicable only to Kodesh because they aren't related to Tum'ah d'Oraisa. 4. If the opening is very small, the immersion of the needles would not be valid.

]]>
Chagigah 21 - INSIGHTS The Mishnah says that a garment of Kodesh must be untied and dried out before immersion in the Mikvah and the Gemara explains that the knot may cause of a Chatzitzah. That explains why it must be untied prior to immersion, but why does it have to be dried out. Rashi says in the Mishnah that the reason it must be dried out before immersion is also because of the possibility of a Chatzitzah. Rashi intent is not that the water itself is Chotzetz, rather his intent is that there may be some dirt on the garment that is sticking to the garment only while it is damp and if the garment is dried out it will detach from the garment. (Netziv)

]]>
Chagigah 21 - HALACHA CHAGIGAH 21 - dedicated in honor of the Bris of Elchanan Naftali Solomon in Yerushalayim (on 5 Iyar) by his father, Oren Solomon, and his grandfather, Reb Shmuel Solomon of N.Y.

]]>
Chagigah 20 - SUMMARY The Tana'im dispute the status of a person that guards his Chulin from Tum'ah as if it was Kodesh. (1) If a person's cloak fell and he requests that his friend hand it to him, it is the cloak must now be regarded as being Tamei. (2) If a person's took his Shabbos clothing thinking that it was his weekday clothing, the clothing must now be regarded as being Tamei. (3) There was an incident of two women that mixed up their clothing in the bathhouse and R. Akiva ruled that their clothing is Tamei. (4) One who is guarding a jar from Tum'ah, thinking it was wine and it was actually oil, it is Tahor. (5) If a person sticks his hand into a basket that is on his shoulder and he had in mind to guard the basket but not the machete inside the basket, the basket is Tahor and the machete is Tamei. A woman came in front of R. Yishmael and said, "I weaved a garment and guarded it from Tum'ah, but I did not have in mind to guard it." Upon inquiries from R. Yishmael, she eventually admitted that a Nidah pulled the rope with her. A woman came in front of R. Yishmael and said, "I guarded the napkin that I wove from Tum'ah, but I did not have in mind to guard it." Upon inquiries from R. Yishmael she eventually admitted that she tied a knot in a thread with her mouth. If a person's workers were carrying food or wine that is Tahor, and he was m'Taher the workers, even if the employer was quite a distance away, he could rely on the fact that they wouldn't allow anyone else to touch the food or wine and thus it remains Tahor. If he told his workers that he will only be arriving later, he could not rely on the workers, and the food or wine that they are carrying must be regarded as Tamei.
 
**A BIT MORE**
1. According to the Tanah Kama of the Beraisa, his status is no different from anyone that eats Chulin. R. Elazar Bar Tzadok holds that he has the status of a Kohen that eats Terumah and the Tana of our Mishnah holds that he has the status of a person that eats Kodesh. 2. The reason is because a person does not guard from Tum'ah an item that is in his friend's hand. 3. The reason is because a person generally guards his Shabbos clothing more carefully than his weekday clothing and since he confused it with weekday clothing he was not watching them as carefully as he does normally. 4. The reason is because each woman regards her friend as the wife of an Am ha'Aretz and does not trust her to guard the clothing properly. 5. If he was only guarding it from Tum'ah and not from becoming Pasul, it would be prohibited to eat the oil.

]]>
Chagigah 20 - INSIGHTS The Mishnah says that utensils that were completed b'Taharah require immersion for Kodesh but not for Terumah. According to Tosfos, the reason the Mishnah says that they were completed b'Taharah and it doesn't say that they were made b'Taharah, because a person does not generally guard the utensil from becoming Tamei until it is almost completed, since a utensil is only susceptible to Tum'ah upon completion. The Turei Even says that the implication in Tosfos is that even if the utensil was guarded from Tum'ah initially it would still be regarded as Tamei for Kodesh. That is a very problematic insinuation because that would mean that an earthenware utensil may never be used for Kodesh even if it was guarded initially from Tum'ah. Since a utensil is regarded as Tamei as soon as it is completed no matter how long it was guarded, and earthenware utensils can't be purified in a Mikvah, they may never be used for Kodesh. Yet we find examples in the Mishnah that an earthenware utensil was used for Kodesh. Therefore the Turei Even concludes that if an earthenware utensil is guarded from Tum'ah at the very beginning it would be regarded as Tahor even for Kodesh.

]]>
Chagigah 20 - HALACHA If a person's workers were carrying Taharos and they traveled ahead of him, even if they were a distance of more than a Mil ahead of him, it is regarded as being Tahor, since they are afraid to touch it because they are constantly thinking that he is coming any minute. However if he told his workers that they should go first and he will be arriving later, as soon as they are out of his sight, it is regarded as being Tamei. (Rambam Hilchos m'Tamei Mishkav u'Moshav 13:5)

]]>