ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Chagigah 21
CHAGIGAH 21 - Dedicated by Dovid and Zahava Rubner of Petach Tikva. May
Hashem grant them and all of their offspring with joy, fulfillment, and all
that they need!
(a) The reason that Rebbi Ila gives for the Reisha of our Mishnah, which
forbids Toveling one Kodesh vessel inside another - is because the weight of
the inner vessel will create a Chatzitzah, preventing the Tevilah of either
one from being effective.
(b) The problem from the Seifa 'she'be'Kodesh, Matir u'Menagev u'Matbil ...
', is that seeing as both decrees are based on the fact that they create a
Chatzitzah, why does the Tana need to mention both of them?
(c) We answer that both cases do indeed need to be mentioned. We would not
know the Chumra of ...
1. ... 'Matir u'Menagev u'Matbil ... ' from that of the Reisha (prohibiting
Toveling one vessel inside another) - because the latter is due to the
weight, in which case we would assume that, seeing as *that* problem is
non-existent in the former, the decree does not apply there.
2. ... the Reisha of the Mishnah from that of 'Matir u'Menagev u'Matbil ...
' - because there, the latter is due to the knots which become intensified
in the water, whereas in the former case, the opposite is true (the water
releases the pressure from the inner vessel, causing it to float).
Consequently, we would assume that, seeing as the problem is non-existent,
the decree does not apply there.
(a) According to Rebbi Ila Amar Rav Chanina bar Papa - the eleven Chumros
listed in our Mishnah are really only *ten* (seeing as the two that we just
discussed are both based on Chatzitzah).
(b) He actually divides the Mishnah into two lots of five cases.
1. 'K'li be'Toch K'li' (because of Chatzitzah), 'Achorayim ve'Toch ... '
(Mashkeh Zav ve'Zavah), 'Nosei es ha'Medras' (Medras ha'Zav), 'Bigdei Ochlei
Kodesh' (Shema Yashvah Aleihen Ishto Nidah) and 'Keilim ha'Nigmarin
be'Taharah' (the spittle of an Am ha'Aretz, who may be a Zav) - are all
decrees because of Tum'ah d'Oraysa (as indicated).
(c) The Halachic ramifications of the distinction between the two groups of
Chumros is that - whereas the former group applies to 'Chulin she'Na'asu al
Taharos ha'Kodesh' as well as to Kodesh, the latter group is confined to
2. 'ha'K'li Metzaref ... ', 'ha'Revi'i ba'Kodesh', 'Im Nitma'as Achas
mi'Yadav, Matbil Sh'teihem' 'Ein Ochlin Ochlin Neguvin be'Yadayim Meso'avos
be'Kodesh' and 'ha'Onen u'Mechusar Kipurim Tzerichin Tevilah le'Kodesh' -
are all pure de'Rabbanans.
(a) According to Rava - the Mishnah lists *eleven* Chumros of Kodesh over
Terumah (including 'Matir u'Menagev ve'Kosher' - not included in Rav Ila's
(b) Out of these - the first *six* extend to Chulin she'Na'asu al Taharas
ha'Kodesh, the last five do not.
(a) According to Rava, Chazal forbade Toveling one vessel inside another by
Kodesh - because of a decree that one might come to Tovel pins and needles
of Hekdesh inside a vessel whose mouth does not have the Shiur of
(b) The Mishnah in Mikva'os teaches us - that two halves of a Mikveh that
are joined by a gap in the dividing partition that is 'ki'Shefoferes ha'Nod'
(a hole that is large enough for two fingers to swivel round inside it)
combine to make a Kasher Mikveh.