QUESTION: The Mishnah (20b) lists eleven ways in which Kodesh is treated with
greater stringency than Terumah. The Gemara splits the Mishnah into two
categories. The first six differences between Kodesh and Terumah (until and
including "Kelim ha'Nigmarim b'Taharah...") apply to actual Kodesh *and* to
Chulin she'Na'asu Al Taharas ha'Kodesh. The last five differences apply only
to actual Kodesh.
The Gemara records two ways of explaining the first difference listed in the
Mishnah, that "for Terumah one may immerse Kelim inside of other Kelim, but
not for Kodesh." Rav Ila says that such a Tevilah does not work for Kodesh
because of the laws of Chatzitzah -- we are concerned that the inner Kli
might sit on the inner surface of the Kli which contains it, creating a
Chatzitzah so that the water cannot reach all parts of the Kelim. According
to Rav Ila, this stringency of Kodesh is identical to the fifth stringency
listed in the Mishnah -- that when immersing a garment for use with Kodesh,
one must first untie it, dry it out, and then one may immerse it, while for
Terumah the garment may be immersed while tied up and while wet ("b'Kodesh
Matir u'Menagev u'Matbil..."). This Chumra is also related to the laws of
Chatzitzah.
Rava argues and says that the first difference in the Mishnah is an
independent stringency and has nothing to do with Chatzitzah. Rather, it is a
Gezeirah invalidating Tevilah of a Kli inside of another Kli, in order to
prevent people from thinking that it is permitted to immerse a Kli inside of
another Kli with a very small opening, in which case the inner Kli does not
become Tahor at all because there is not enough water coming into the hole to
make it considered attached to the Mikvah. The Chachamim made a Gezeirah not
to immerse a Kli inside of another Kli, even if it has a wide opening, lest
one come to immerse a Kli inside of another Kli with a small opening.
Two questions may be asked on the wording of the Mishnah based on the
Gemara's explanation.
First, halfway through the Mishnah, immediately before listing the obligation
to untie and dry ("Matir u'Menagev") a garment in order to be Tovel it for
use with Kodesh, the Mishnah gives a short introduction and says, "The
attributes of Kodesh are not like those of Terumah...." The Mishnah seems to
be indicating that it is starting a new list here, and it is making a
separation between the first list and the new one that follows.
That the Mishnah is beginning a new list is reinforced by another change
between the first half of the Mishnah and the second half. In the first list,
in each difference between Terumah and Kodesh, the Mishnah mentions that it
is permitted to do such an act for Terumah but not for Kodesh, always placing
Terumah before Kodesh. Starting from the case of "Matir u'Menagev," however,
the Mishnah switches the order and says first that such an act may not be
done for Kodesh, but it may be done for Terumah.
Since the Gemara (21b and 22a) has stated clearly that everyone agrees that
the case of "Matir u'Menagev" is part of the first half of the Mishnah (and
it applies to Chulin she'Na'asu Al Taharas ha'Kodesh just like it applies to
actual Kodesh), why did the Mishnah give a new introduction before that
Halachah. Moreover, why did the Mishnah switch its style of mentioning
Terumah first and then Kodesh starting with this Halachah? It should have
changed its style *after* the Halachah *following* this one (Kelim
ha'Nigmarim b'Taharah), to denote that the last five cases in the Mishnah
differ from the first six! (TOSFOS 20b, DH Lo k'Midas, TUREI EVEN 20b; see
also TIFERES YISRAEL.)
Second, according to Rav Ila, the first and fifth differences between Kodesh
and Terumah are the same: we are concerned for the possibility of a
Chatzitzah for Kodesh but not for Terumah, and thus, for Kodesh, the
Chachamim invalidated Tevilah of Kelim inside of other Kelim, and Tevilah of
knotted and wet garments, because of the fear of a Chatzitzah. Since those
two laws in the Mishnah are just different aspects of the same law, why does
the Mishnah interrupt between them with three other Halachos? It should have
stated these two aspects of Chatzitzah together! (TUREI EVEN 21a; see also
NETZIV in MEROMEI SADEH.)
ANSWERS:
(a) The TUREI EVEN answers the first question by saying that perhaps the
Chachamim decided that the first set of Gezeiros mentioned in the Mishnah (up
to and not including "Matir u'Menagev") are more logical Gezeiros, and it is
therefore reasonable to apply them not only for Kodesh, but for Terumah as
well. Therefore, the main point the Mishnah is teaching, regarding these
Gezeiros, is that even though the Gezeiros are logical, they do *not* apply
to Terumah. Since the Chidush is that the Gezeiros do not apply to Terumah,
the Mishnah mentions Terumah first and only afterwards does it say that the
Gezeirah does apply to Kodesh.
The second set of Gezeiros, including "Matir u'Menagev," are Gezeiros which
are less logical and we would not have assumed to be so stringent, even for
Kodesh. Therefore, the Mishnah has to teach that even though these Gezeiros
do not seem logical to us, they *do* apply to Kodesh. Since the Chidush is
that the Chachamim applied these stringencies to Kodesh, the Mishnah mentions
Kodesh first and only afterwards does it say that the Gezeirah does not apply
to Terumah.
(According to this approach, even though the stringency of "Matir u'Menagev"
applies also to Chulin she'Na'asu Al Taharas ha'Kodesh, and in that sense it
is a strong, broad Gezeirah, nevertheless logically there is *less* reason to
apply that Gezeirah than the preceding Gezeiros and therefore the Mishnah
says first that it does apply to Kodesh before saying that it does not apply
to Terumah.)
This does not answer, though, why -- according to Rav Ila -- there is an
interruption in the Mishnah between the first and fifth cases, which are both
because of Chatzitzah. Also, according to Rav Ila, it does not even answer
the first question, because the fifth Gezeirah is just as logical as the
first Gezeirah (since they are actually two applications of the same
Gezeirah)!
In order to answer these questions, the Turei Even proposes that Rav Ila
agrees with Rava that besides the problem of Chatzitzah, there is an
additional reason why the Chachamim prohibited immersing one Kli inside of
another -- because the Chachamim did not want us to think that it is also
permitted to immerse a Kli inside of a Kli which has a very small opening.
Rav Ila only argues with Rava with regard to the second Gezeirah of
Chatzitzah. Since Rav Ila holds that there is the additional Gezeirah of
Chatzitzah, he prohibits immersing one Kli inside of another even when the
outer Kli is of the type which always has a very large opening, while Rava
would permit it (because he does not hold of the problem of Chatzitzah, and
when the opening is large enough his own Gezeirah does not apply, as the
Gemara says on 22a). The Mishnah wants to teach us, according to Rav Ila,
that the Gezeirah of "Matir u'Menagev" has a *second* reason, besides the
reason of Chatzitzah, and that is why the Mishnah separates that Halachah
from the Halachah of "Kli Betoch Kli."
Since even Rav Ila agrees that the Chumra of "Matir u'Menagev" is teaching us
a new Gezeirah (that of immersing in a Kli with a small opening), the answer
to the first question that the Turei Even gives applies also to Rav Ila: this
second Gezeirah is less obvious than the Gezeirah of Chatzitzah, and
therefore the Mishnah first says the Chidush that it does apply to Kodesh,
and only afterwards does it say that it does not apply to Terumah. (The
Mishnah apparently added the introductory statement of "The attributes of
Kodesh are not like those of Terumah..." to separate between the two
categories of Gezeiros -- those which are more logical, and those which are
less logical.)
The Turei Even, however, questions his approach. We said that Rav Ila agrees
to Rava. Besides the problem of Chatzitzah, there is an additional Gezeirah
prohibiting the immersion of one Kli inside of another (lest one immerse
inside of a Kli that has a very small opening). What is the purpose of that
second Gezeirah? It will always be prohibited to immerse a Kli inside of
another Kli because of the first Gezeirah (that of Chatzitzah)! Why did the
Chachamim have to add another Gezeirah? He answers that the new Gezeirah will
apply when the inner Kli is very light (for example, a needle), in which case
there is no Gezeirah of Chatzitzah because the small Kli will certainly be
lifted up by the water. (This is problematic, though, because if this is why
the second Gezeirah is needed, why does the Gemara have to search for reasons
why the Mishnah mentioned two Halachos of Chatzitzah? According to the Turei
Even, the Mishnah has a very good reason for mentioning both of them -- to
teach that there are *two Gezeiros* preventing one from immersing a Kli
inside of a Kli! See Turei Even there for his answer to this question.)
(b) Perhaps we can suggest another answer to explain the wording of the
Mishnah.
Although the Gemara lists all of the 11 differences between Kodesh and
Terumah together, in the Mishnayos they are split up into three separate
Mishnayos (apparently, in order not to overburden the student attempting to
memorize them). The first Mishnah ends after Halachah #5 (Matir u'Menagev
u'Matbil), the second Mishnah ends after Halachah #9 (one hand makes the
other Tamei), and the third ends after the last of the Halachos (Onen and
Mechusar Kipurim). The Yerushalmi splits the Mishnah in the same fashion.
The TOSFOS YOM TOV tells us (Avos 3:13) in the name of DERECH CHAYIM, that
when the Mishnah provides a list of items, it often reverses the structure of
the last statement in the list, in order to denote that it is the last. (For
instance, "Masores Seyag l'Torah, Ma'asros Seyag l'Osher... Seyag l'Chochmah
Shetikah.") We may suggest that here, too, the reason for the change in order
is to reverse the last statement in the Mishnah. Terumah is mentioned before
Kodesh at the start of the Mishnah, but in the last on the list, the Halachah
of Matir u'Menagev *Kodesh* is mentioned first. The second Mishnah continues
in that order, mentioning Kodesh first, until the last Halachah in that
Mishnah, (one hand is Metamei the other), in which the Mishnah puts Terumah
before Kodesh, reversing the order once again to "end" the list of that
Mishnah. In the third Mishnah, the Mishnah again begins in the order used at
the end of the previous Mishnah, with Terumah first. It ends once again in
reverse order, listing Kodesh before Terumah with regard to Onen and Mechusar
Kipurim. Thus, the order of where Kodesh is mentioned first and where Terumah
is mentioned first is exactly as one should expect.
According to Rav Ila, we asked, why does the Mishnah not connect the two
Halachos that are related to Chatzitzah? According to what we have said now,
the reason is because rather Matbil u'Menagev is not a new Halachah, but
rather a clarification of a previously mentioned one. The Mishnah waits until
the end of its first list (i.e. the end of the first Mishnah) before
returning to clarify that the stringency of Kodesh with regard to Chatzitzah
applies in more ways that just Kli Betoch Kli. This is also the reason why
the Mishnah gives an introductory statement before mentioning Matir
u'Menagev. The Mishnah means to show that the first list is over and now it
is just explaining one of the cases in that list.
According to Rava, who says the Matir u'Menagev is entirely unrelated to Kli
Betoch Kli, the reason for the introductory remark before Matir u'Menagev is
apparently in order to help the Mishnah reverse the order of Kodesh and
Terumah in its forthcoming statement. Rava prefers to explain that way,
rather than to have the Mishnah leave a broad gap between two associated
Halachos. (M. Kornfeld)