FROM THEIR MOUTHS AND NOT FROM THEIR WRITING - Yevamos 31 - Daf Yomi

The Gemora states that testimony is valid only from the mouths of the witnesses, not on the basis of any documents. It is evident that writing is not the same as talking.

The Gemora Chagigah (10b) cites Shmuel who states that one who resolves to make a vow must express the vow with his lips; otherwise, it is meaningless.

The Noda b’Yehudah (Y”D I: 66) inquires if an oath that was written down but not expressed would be valid as an oath. His underlying question is: Do we regard his written word as an expression of his lips?

This should be dependent on a dispute between the Rambam and Rabbeinu Tam regarding the validity of testimony from a written document. The Rambam maintains that testimony must be from the mouth of the witnesses and a document will not be Biblically acceptable for testimony. Rabbeinu Tam disagrees and holds that one who is physically capable of testifying may testify through the means of a document.

He concludes, however, that even the Rambam would agree that writing is considered testimony and yet, a written document cannot be accepted by Beis Din. The logic for this is as follows: An act of writing can constitute speech, but only during the time that it is being written. Beis Din will only accept an oral testimony when they hear it directly; hearsay is disqualified. Witnesses who signed a document are testifying, but Beis Din is not present at that time. If they would sign in front of Beis Din, that would be considered valid testimony.

With this principle, you can answer what would seemingly be a contradiction in the Rambam. He rules in Hilchos Eidus (3:7) that testimony must be from the mouth of the witnesses and a document will not be Biblically acceptable for testimony; yet later in Perek 9:11, he writes that one is required to testify with his mouth or at least that he is fitting to testify with his mouth. This would imply that if he is fitting to testify with his mouth, he would be permitted to testify through the means of a document. According to the Noda b’Yehudah’s explanation, it can be said that the Rambam allows witnesses to testify through the means of a document, but only if they sign the document when Beis Din is present. Accordingly, we can say that an oath taken through writing will be binding.

Reb Akiva Eiger discusses some other practical applications for this principle.

(http://weeklyshtikle.blogspot.com/2007/05/weekly-shtikle-emor.html) The Weekly Shtikle writes the following: The topic is the discussion as to whether or not writing may qualify as a valid means of fulfilling the mitzvah of Sefiras HaOmer. That is, if one was to write, "Hayom Yom X La'Omer," would that be sufficient to fulfill one's obligation and would this action disallow one from repeating the count with a brachah?

The discussion of this halachic quandary follows an interesting family tree. This issue is first dealt with in Shaalos uTeshuvos of R' Akiva Eiger, siman 29. The teshuvah is actually written by R' Akiva Eiger's uncle, R' Wolf Eiger. Unable to attend his nephew's wedding, he made a simultaneous banquet of his own to celebrate the occasion. He wrote to his nephew about this halachic issue which was discussed at the banquet. He cites a number of related issues which he builds together to try to reach a conclusion. The gemara (Yevamos 31b, Gittin 71a) teaches that witnesses may only testify by means of their mouths and not by writing. The gemara (Shabbos 153b) states that mutes should not separate Terumah because they cannot say the brachah. It is assumed that writing the brachah would not have been sufficient. Also, there is a discussion amongst the commentaries with regards to the validity of a vow that is written and not recited. R' Wolf Eiger concludes that writing is not a sufficient means of fulfilling the mitzvah of Sefiras HaOmer. However, this sparks a debate between him and his nephew which stretches out to siman 32.

This issue is eventually discussed in Shaalos uTeshuvos Kesav Sofer (Yoreh Dei'ah siman 106) by R' Avraham Shmuel Binyomin Sofer, R' Akiva Eiger's grandson who was, in fact, named after R' Wolf Eiger. He covers a host of related topics and eventually discusses the exchange recorded in his grandfather's sefer. The debate, although it encompasses various pertinent issues, never produces any concrete proof directly concerning the act of counting. However, Ksav Sofer quotes his father, Chasam Sofer, in his footnotes to Shaalos uTeshuvos R' Akiva Eiger (his father- in-law) where he provides a more concrete proof. The gemara (Yoma 22b) teaches that one who counts the number of B'nei Yisroel transgresses a prohibition as it is written (Hoshea 2:1) "And the number of B'nei Yisroel shall be like the sand of the sea that shall not be measured nor counted." The gemara cites two examples (Shmuel I 11:8, 15:4) where Shaul HaMelech went out of his way to avoid this prohibition by using pieces of clay or rams in order to perform a census. Chasam Sofer suggests that Shaul could simply have counted the men by writing down the numbers and not saying them. Since Shaul went to far greater lengths, we are compelled to say that writing the number of men would still have qualified as counting them and he would hot have sufficiently dodged the prohibition. Thus, concludes Chasam Sofer, if one has explicit intention to fulfill the mitzvah, writing is a valid means of performing the mitzvah of Sefiras HaOmer. However, Kesav Sofer suggests that perhaps the brachah should not be recited in this case.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Chagigah 27 - BURIAL CASKETS MADE FROM THEIR TABLE

The Torah specifies (25:23) that the table in the Mishkan was to be made specifically from atzei shitim – acacia wood. Why was this type of wood specifically chosen for this purpose?

Rabbeinu Bechaye notes that the letters spelling the word shitim are short for the words shalom, tovah, yeshuah, mechilah – peace, goodness, salvation, and forgiveness. This type of wood was also used in the Holy Ark and the altar, hinting to us that the Divine Service performed through these vessels was the source of brining down all of these blessings to the world.

In our day, however, when we unfortunately lack all of these items, what do we have in their stead through which we may merit the rewards and bounty that they brought? The Gemora in Chagiga (27a) derives from a verse in Yechezkel that in the absence of the Holy Temple, the generous opening up of a person’s table to serve the poor and other guests serves in lieu of the altar. The Gemora in Berachos (54b) adds that doing so is a merit for long life.

Reb Oizer Alpert cites the Rabbeinu Bechaye, who mentions the fascinating custom of the pious men of France who had their burial caskets built from the wood of their tables. This symbolizes their recognition that upon dying, none of their earthly possessions would be accompanying them and the only item they could take with them was the merit of the charity and hosting of guests that they performed in their lifetimes. In fact, the Minchas Cohen suggests that the letters in the word shulchan are abbreviations for shomer likevurah chesed nedivosayich – preserving for burial the kindness of your giving!

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Chagigah 27 - Highlights (Mazal Tov on the Completion of Seder Moed!!)

Rabbi Yochanan and Rish Lakish both say: When the Beis HaMikdosh was in existence, the Altar would provide atonement for a person. Now that the Beis HaMikdosh is destroyed, a person’s table atones for him (through acts of kindness, i.e. inviting guests to his house). (27a)

The Mishna had stated: All the vessels which were in the Temple were subject to immersion, except the Golden Altar and the Copper Altar because they were likened to earth (and earth is not susceptible to tumah). These are Rabbi Eliezer’s words.

The Gemora provides the Scriptural verse that the Altars are like earth. (27a)

The Mishna had stated: All the vessels which were in the Temple were subject to immersion, except the Golden Altar and the Copper Altar because they were likened to earth (and earth is not susceptible to tumah). These are Rabbi Eliezer’s words. The Chachamim said: Because they were plated.

It would seem that the Chachamim are in agreement with Rabbi Eliezer that the Altars are not susceptible to tumah; they are just offering another reason.

The Gemora asks: Isn’t the fact that the Altars were plated a reason why they should acquire tumah?

The Gemora answers: The Chachamim are in fact arguing with Rabbi Eliezer and they maintain that the Altars can acquire tumah because they are plated.

The Gemora offers an alternative answer: The Chachamim were asking Rabbi Eliezer on the necessity for citing a verse proving that the Altars cannot acquire tumah because they are likened to earth. What would be the reason to think that they are susceptible to tumah? If it’s because they are plated and treated as a metal utensil, that is incorrect. The metal is subordinate to the wood because Scripture refers to the Altar as an Altar of Wood. Since it is regarded as a wooden vessel, it cannot acquire tumah because it is stationary, and stationary wooden utensils are not susceptible to tumah. (27a)

Rabbi Avahu said in the name of Rabbi Elozar: The fire of Gehinom does not rule over Torah scholars. This is derived through a kal vachomer from the salamandra (a beast created through magic from a fire that was burning for seven uninterrupted years): A salamandra, which is only an offspring of fire, and one who smears himself with its blood, fire cannot rule over him; a Torah scholar whose entire body is fire, how much more so (fire cannot rule over him). (27a)

Rish Lakish said: The fire of Gehinom cannot rule over the sinners of Israel. This is derived through a kal vachomer from the Golden Altar: The Golden Altar had only a dinar’s thickness of gold and nevertheless, the fire of many years did not rule over it; the sinners of Israel, who are full of mitzvos in the same manner as a pomegranate is full of seeds, how much more so (fire of Gehinom cannot rule over them). (27a)

WE SHALLL RETURN TO YOU, CHOMER BAKODESH

AND TRACTATE CHAGIGAH IS CONCLUDED

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Chagigah 26 - LINGERING TASTE

The Gemora states: The Kohanim would lift the Table and show the festival pilgrims the showbread. They would tell them: “See how beloved you are before the Omnipresent; the bread is just as hot and fresh now (at the time of removal from the Table) as it was when it was arranged.” Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: There was a great miracle that transpired with the showbread. The showbread was placed on the Table on Shabbos, and it was subsequently removed the following Shabbos. For the bread to remain fresh in such a state was an open miracle.

There were many miracles that transpired in the Beis HaMikdosh; why was this the miracle chosen to show the pilgrims?

The Sfas Emes answers: The pilgrims attained extremely high levels of spirituality when they visited the Beis HaMikdosh during the festival. They felt the Shechina in close proximity. They observed the Kohanim performing the sacrificial offerings and were uplifted.

We wanted to ensure that the heights that they reached during the festival would not be lost and it was for this reason that the miracle regarding the showbread was displayed to them. The bread was placed on the Table the Shabbos before, but it can still remain hot and fresh the following week.

This also explains why we answer the wise son by the seder night; one is forbidden to eat anything after the eating of the afikoman. The discussions of emunah and bitachon, thanking HaShem for redeeming us and becoming the Chosen Nation brings us to spiritual heights that we never achieved before. We tell the wise son, don’t let this slip away. The taste of the matzah should linger in your mouth all throughout the night, demonstrating that it is our wish that the levels of sanctity and purity that have been reached should not be cast away.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Chagigah 26 - Highlights

The Mishna states: From the city of Modiim and inwards (towards Yerushalayim), the am haaratzim are trusted regarding small earthenware vessels that they are tahor. From Modiim and outward, they are not believed. (Modiim was a city that was 15 mil away from Yerushalayim.) These utensils could not be manufactured in Yerushalayim and they were used every day. If we would not have allowed them to purchase these vessels from the am haaratzim, the public would not be able to manage; the sages do not issue decrees when many people cannot comply with it.

If the potter who is selling the pots enters Modiim (heading towards Yerushalayim), you can purchase these small vessels only from him, and only those pots, provided that you observed him entering. If he left Modiim, he is not believed. (25b)

The Gemora cites a braisa regarding the status of Modiim itself: Sometimes it is regarded as being inward of Modiim (and one can purchase from him) and sometimes it is regarded as being outwards of Modiim. When the potter is leaving Modiim and the chaver is coming in, Modiim is like the inside and the chaver may purchase from the am haaretz (since if he delays, he will not have the opportunity to purchase later).

When both the potter and chaver are coming in, or for that matter both are going out, it is like outside and he may not purchase from him. (In the former case, he can wait until they are inward from Modiim and in the latter case, the chaver was penalized for not purchasing the vessels when they were both inwards.)

The Gemora derives the above halachos from the language of our Mishna. (25b – 26a)

It was taught in a braisa: An am haaretz is trusted (within Modiim) regarding small earthenware vessels that they are tahor for kodesh.

Rish Lakish says: A vessel is considered small if it can be held in one hand. Rabbi Yochanan disagrees and maintains that it is regarded as small even if it is bigger than that. (26a)

Rish Lakish maintains that the vessels are regarded as tahor provided that they are empty. Rabbi Yochanan holds that the vessels are tahor even if they contain liquids that are chulin.

Rava said: It emerges according to Rabbi Yochanan that the vessels are tahor despite the fact that the liquids are tamei. (26a)

The Mishna states: Tax agents that entered a house or thieves that returned the earthenware vessels that they stole are believed to say that they did not touch the interior of the vessel and thus are deemed to be tahor. (This halacha is only in respect to kodesh, but not for terumah.)

The Mishna continues: In Yerushalayim, the am haaratzim are believed regarding the tahara of kodesh, but not for terumah. During the festival, they are believed even for terumah. (26a)

The Gemora asks a contradiction from a Mishna in Taharos (7:6): If the tax agents enter a house, the entire house is deemed to be tamei.

The Gemora answers: The Mishna in Taharos is referring to a case where there is a gentile among them. Our Mishna is referring to a case where there are no gentiles with them.

The Gemora asks: Why are they not believed if there was a gentile among them?

Rabbi Yochanan and Rabbi Eliezer offer answers. One of them said: The other agents are afraid that the gentile will punish them for being lazy and not searching the house thoroughly; that is why they are not believed that they didn’t come into contact with the vessels. The other answered: They are afraid that the gentile will report on them to the king and therefore they perform a thorough search. (26a)

The Mishna had stated: In Yerushalayim, the am haaratzim are believed regarding the tahara of kodesh, but not for terumah.

The Gemora cites a braisa: They are believed regarding large earthenware vessels that will be used for kodesh. The Gemora explains the reasoning for this: We do not make kilns in Yerushalayim (so that the smoke shouldn’t blacken the walls of the city); earthenware vessels were scarce and there was no alternative, but to allow the chaveirim to purchase those vessels from them. (26a)

The Mishna states: If a chaver opens his barrel of wine or commences selling his dough during the festival; Rabbi Yehudah says: He may continue selling it after the festival. The Chachamim maintain that he cannot conclude the selling of this barrel or dough (because it has already been rendered tamei on account of the am haaratzim). (26a)

Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Yitzchak Nafcha were sitting on the porch of the latter. One began and said: According to the Chachamim, may he keep it for another festival? The other one answered: Every one's hand has been handling it, and you say, he shall keep it for another festival (it is certainly tamei)? The first one said to him: But until now as well, has not every one's hand been handling it (and nevertheless, the chaver was permitted to sell it)? He replied: What comparison is that? During the festival, it was understandable why the chaver could sell the food because the am haaretz was regarded as tahor; however, now that the festival has passed, the food is tamei retroactively.

The Gemora cites a braisa which would indicate that he would be allowed to set the food aside until the next festival. (26a)

The Mishna states: As soon as the festival is over, they remove the Temple vessels to purify them. (The am haaratzim were able to touch the vessels during the festival, and once the festival has passed, they become tamei retroactively.) If the festival was over on a Friday, they do not remove the vessels on that day on the account of the honor of Shabbos (the Kohanim were preoccupied with their Shabbos preparations at home). R. Yehudah said: They would not remove the vessels on Thursday either, since the Kohanim are not at leisure then. (26a)

The Gemora explains Rabbi Yehudah’s reasoning: The Kohanim were not at leisure because they were occupied with removing the ashes that accumulated on the Mizbeach during the festival. (The ashes from all the korbanos brought during the festival were piled onto the mound at the center of the Mizbeach and were only removed after the festival.) (26a)

The Mishna states: How was the purification of the Courtyard done? They immersed the vessels which were in the Temple. During the festival, they would say to the kohanim who were am haaratzim, “Be careful not to touch the Table.” (The Table could not be immersed after the festival.)

All the vessels that were in the Temple had second and third sets, so that if the first became tamei, they would be able to bring the second ones instead of them.

All the vessels which were in the Temple were subject to immersion, except the Golden Altar and the Copper Altar because they were likened to earth (and earth is not susceptible to tumah). These are Rabbi Eliezer’s words. The Chachamim said: Because they were plated. (26a – 26b)

The Gemora cites a braisa: During the festival, they would say to the kohanim who were am haaratzim, “Be careful not to touch the Table and the Menorah.”

The Gemora asks: Why didn’t our Mishna teach this halacha regarding the Menorah, as well?

The Gemora answers: It is written “tamid” by the Table, indicating that the Table must be in its place continuously and it cannot be moved. There is a Tannaic dispute if this halacha applies to the Menorah, as well. (26b)

The Gemora asks: We can infer from the Mishna that there is the possibility of the Table becoming tamei; how can this be? We have learned that any wooden utensil which is intended to remain stationary is not susceptible to tumah through contact. How could the Table become tamei?

The Gemora answers: The Table did indeed move; they would lift the Table and show the festival pilgrims the showbread. They would tell them: “See how beloved you are before the Omnipresent; the bread is just as hot and fresh now (at the time of removal from the Table) as it was when it was arranged.” Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: There was a great miracle that transpired with the showbread. (The showbread was placed on the Table on Shabbos, and it was subsequently removed the following Shabbos. For the bread to remain fresh in such a state was an open miracle.) It emerges that the Table was moved and thus can become tamei.

The Gemora asks: Perhaps the Table is susceptible to tumah because it is coated with gold? Rabbi Yochanan said: A wooden utensil is subordinate to the coating whether the coating is anchored or not and whether the coating covers the rim or not.

The Gemora answers: The Table in the Beis HaMikdosh is different; we find that Scripture refers to the Table as a Table of Wood. It is regarded as wood despite the fact that it was plated with gold. (26b – 27a)

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Chagigah 25 - WOMEN ENTERING A SYNAGOGUE AND PRAYING WHILE THEY ARE A NIDDAH

The Rema in Orach Chaim 88 quotes sources who maintain that a woman should not enter a synagogue while she is a niddah. Furthermore, a woman who is a niddah should not pray, mention the Name of Hashem or even touch a sefer. The Rema also quotes sources who disagree with this ruling. The Rema concludes that the custom is in accordance with the first opinion. However, the Rema limits this restriction to a woman who is still menstruating whereas a woman who has ceased to see a flow but is in the stage of becoming pure is not restricted from entering a synagogue, praying, reciting the Name of HaShem or from touching a sefer. He concludes that even in places that are strict in these matters, it would be permitted for them to come to the synagogue on the High Holy Days and any time that that there are a multitude of people going since otherwise, they would feel distressed.

The Magen Avraham writes: Since it is permitted for them to enter the synagogue, they are allowed to pray, as well. He cites a Gemora in Yevamos as a support (hint) for this ruling. The Gemora states that one who is a metzora and also a baal keri is still permitted to insert parts of his body into the Courtyard of the Temple. One who has tzaraas is prohibited from entering the Courtyard except to have the blood placement procedure on the eighth day. Since the Torah waives the restriction for a regular metzora, it is waived for a baal keri, as well.

The Chasam Sofer in his notes on Orach Chaim asks on the Magen Avraham: One who is tamei cannot enter the Courtyard; if the Torah waives this action despite the fact that he has tzaraas, it stands to reason that the same action will be permitted despite the fact that he is also a baal keri. Regarding a woman entering a synagogue while she is a niddah and also praying; there are two prohibitions that we need to override. Just because we permit her to enter the synagogue, what is the proof that she will be permitted to pray, as well?

The Rav Peolim (I, O”C 23) cites our Gemora as support for the Magen Avraham.

The Mishna had stated: If the wine-pressing and olive-pressing season has passed, and the am haaretz said to the Kohen, “I have set apart a quarter-log of oil to be kodesh,” he is deemed trustworthy even in regards to the terumah.

The Gemora cites a Mishna in Oholos (18:4): Beis Shammai and Beis Hillel agree that we check a beis haperas (a field in which the grave had been plowed over) for bone chips on the account of people who are on their way to offer the korban pesach (the sages decreed that the field is tamei since there might be bone fragments there, but the decree is removed in this situation), but we do not check on the beis haperas for people wishing to eat terumah.

The Gemora asks: How do we accomplish this checking? Rav Yehudah says in the name of Shmuel: The person blows on the beis haperas and then he can walk through it. Rabbi Chiya bar Abba says in the name of Ula: A beis haperas that has been sufficiently trampled on by many people is tahor (the bone pieces will be pushed to the side); they would check to see if this indeed was the case.

The Gemora explains why the decree was removed on the account of the people who are on their way to offer the korban pesach and not for the people wishing to eat terumah.

One who doesn’t offer a korban pesach is subject to the punishment of kares and therefore the sages waived the regular decree; they did not waive the decree to allow people to eat terumah since one who eats terumah while tamei is subject to death at the hands of Heaven (and there is no hurry to eat the terumah).

The Gemora inquires: If he checked the beis haperas because he wished to perform the korban pesach, can he eat terumah based upon that checking?

Ula says that he may eat terumah and Rabbah bar Ula says that he is forbidden from eating terumah.

There was an elder who said to Rabbah bar Ula that he should not disagree with Ula for the Mishna is proof to him. The Mishna had stated: If the wine-pressing and olive-pressing season has passed, and the am haaretz said to the Kohen, “I have set apart a quarter-log of oil to be kodesh,” he is deemed trustworthy even in regards to the terumah. It is evident that since he is believed in regards to the oil which is kodesh that it is tahor, he is believed regarding the terumah, as well; so too here, since we rely upon the checking for the korban pesach, it can be relied upon for terumah, as well.

It emerges that we apply this principle even though it involves two actions. We trust the am haaretz regarding the kodesh portion of the oil and because of that, we trust him on the terumah portion, and one would be permitted to partake in the terumah, as well.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Chagigah 25 - Highlights

The Mishna states: There is a stringency of terumah over kodesh. In Judea the am haaratzim are trustworthy throughout the year in respect to the purity of the wine and oil (for sacrificial use), but in regards to terumah, they are trustworthy only during the wine-pressing and olive-pressing season.

If the wine-pressing and olive-pressing season has passed, and they brought to the Kohen a barrel of terumah wine, he may not accept it (since it is in all probability tamei); but the owner may leave it until the next season.

If the wine-pressing and olive-pressing season has passed, and the am haaretz said to the Kohen, “I have set apart a quarter-log of oil to be kodesh,” he is deemed trustworthy even in regards to the terumah.

They are trusted concerning the jars of wine and jars of oil that are mixed with terumah during the wine-pressing and olive-pressing season and seventy days prior to the season. (24b – 25a)

The Mishna had stated: There is a stringency of terumah over kodesh. In Judea the am haaratzim are trustworthy throughout the year in respect to the purity of the wine and oil (for sacrificial use), but in regards to terumah, they are trustworthy only during the wine-pressing and olive-pressing season.

The Gemora asks: it can be inferred from the Mishna that they are only trusted in Judea, but not in Galilee; why would this be so?

Rish Lakish answers: It is because there was a strip of Cuthean (those who converted to Judaism after an outbreak of wild animals in Eretz Yisroel and their conversion was debated as to its validity) land between the provinces of Judea and Galilee. The sages issued a decree that land belonging to non-Jews was considered tamei because of unmarked graves, and anyone who walked or was carried over this lane became tamei. It was therefore impossible to transport the wine and the oil from the Galilee to the Beis HaMikdosh without it inevitably becoming tamei.

The Gemora asks: Why couldn’t it be carried in a box (the box should act as a barrier between the tumah of the land and the produce inside the box)?

The Gemora answers: Our Mishna is in accordance with Rebbe who maintains that a moving ohel (roof) is not considered a ohel and therefore it will prevent the tumah of the land from rendering the wine or oil tamei.

The Gemora asks: Couldn’t they bring the wine or oil in an earthenware vessel that is completely sealed: this will certainly protect the wine and oil from becoming tamei?

The Gemora answers: Rabbi Eliezer said: An earthenware vessel that is completely sealed will protect its contents from becoming tamei only if they are chulin, but not kodesh items. (25a)

We had stated above that it was impossible to transport wine and oil from the Galilee to the Bais HaMikdosh without it inevitably becoming tamei because of the strip of Cuthean land in between the provinces.

The Gemora asks: Ula said that in Galilee, the chaveirim (people that are meticulous regarding the performance of mitzvos) would prepare the wine and oil in a state of purity in order to be able to offer them on the mizbeach when the Beis HaMikdosh will be rebuilt; what was the point if the Cuthean land was blocking their way?

The Gemora answers: After they prepared it, they would leave it by them until Eliyahu comes; he will show them a path that is not tamei and they will then transport the wine and oil to the Beis HaMikdosh. (25a)

The Mishna had stated: In regards to terumah, the am haaratzim are trustworthy only during the wine-pressing and olive-pressing season.

The Gemora asks a contradiction from a Mishna in Taharos (9:4): An am haaretz who is completing the gathering of the olives should set aside one box of olives as terumah and give it to a Kohen. Since the olives do not become susceptible to tumah until after the gathering, the Kohen is secure that this box is tahor.

Why was it necessary to do this; our Mishna stated that they are believed during the olive-pressing season?

The Gemora answers: The Mishna in Taharos is referring to the late crop of olives, which is after the pressing-season and therefore the am haaretz is not trusted. (25a)

The Mishna had stated: If the wine-pressing and olive-pressing season has passed, and the am haaretz said to the Kohen, “I have set apart a quarter-log of oil to be kodesh,” he is deemed trustworthy even in regards to the terumah.

They inquired of Rav Sheishes: If the Kohen transgressed and accepted them (after the pressing season), may he keep it until the next pressing season and use it then?

He answered: This can be answered from a braisa regarding a Mishna in Demai (6:9). The braisa states that a Kohen who is a chaver must burn the terumah that he inherited from his father who was an am haaretz. Why should he burn it; let him keep it until the next pressing season and then he can eat it?

It is evident from here that a Kohen who accepts terumah from an am haaretz after the pressing season may not keep them until the next pressing season and they must be destroyed.

The Gemora rejects the proof: Perhaps the braisa is referring to an item such as date beer that does not have a pressing season.

The Gemora asks: Let him keep it until the festival when the am haaratzim are trusted? The Gemora answers: We are referring to items that will not last until the festival. (25a – 25b)

The Mishna had stated: If the wine-pressing and olive-pressing season has passed, and the am haaretz said to the Kohen, “I have set apart a quarter-log of oil to be kodesh,” he is deemed trustworthy even in regards to the terumah.

The Gemora cites a Mishna in Oholos (18:4): Beis Shammai and Beis Hillel agree that we check a beis haperas (a field in which the grave had been plowed over) for bone chips on the account of people who are on their way to offer the korban pesach (the sages decreed that the field is tamei since there might be bone fragments there, but the decree is removed in this situation), but we do not check on the beis haperas for people wishing to eat terumah.

The Gemora asks: How do we accomplish this checking?

Rav Yehudah says in the name of Shmuel: The person blows on the beis haperas and then he can walk through it.

Rabbi Chiya bar Abba says in the name of Ula: A beis haperas that has been sufficiently trampled on by many people is tahor (the bone pieces will be pushed to the side); they would check to see if this indeed was the case.

The Gemora explains why the decree was removed on the account of the people who are on their way to offer the korban pesach and not for the people wishing to eat terumah.

One who doesn’t offer a korban pesach is subject to the punishment of kares and therefore the sages waived the regular decree; they did not waive the decree to allow people to eat terumah since one who eats terumah while tamei is subject to death at the hands of Heaven (and there is no hurry to eat the terumah).

The Gemora inquires: If he checked the beis haperas because he wished to perform the korban pesach, can he eat terumah based upon that checking?

Ula says that he may eat terumah and Rabbah bar Ula says that he is forbidden from eating terumah.

There was an elder who said to Rabbah bar Ula that he should not disagree with Ula for the Mishna is proof to him. The Mishna had stated: If the wine-pressing and olive-pressing season has passed, and the am haaretz said to the Kohen, “I have set apart a quarter-log of oil to be kodesh,” he is deemed trustworthy even in regards to the terumah. It is evident that since he is believed in regards to the oil which is kodesh that it is tahor, he is believed regarding the terumah, as well; so too here, since we rely upon the checking for the korban pesach, it can be relied upon for terumah, as well. (25b)

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Chagigah 24 - TOUCHING THE MEZUZAH

The Gemora (Shabbos 14a) states that people would place food of Terumah next to Torah scrolls. The reason they did this is they claimed that both the Terumah and the Sifrei Torah are Kodesh, so they should be kept together. The Chachamim realized that the Sifrei Torah were becoming damaged because mice would eat the food and then chew on the scrolls. They sought to put a halt to the practice of placing Terumah next to Sifrei Torah, so they enacted a decree that scrolls are considered tamei and render Terumah unfit.

To ensure that people would not touch a Sefer Torah with bare hands, the Chachamim decreed that one who touches a sefer with bare hands; his hands are rendered tamei and will render Terumah pasul.

There is a debate in the Rishonim if the decree only applies to one who touches Sifrei Torah, or to one who touches any sefer. Tosfos in Shabbos (ibid) maintains that this decree applies to all holy writings. Tosfos (Chagigah 24b) disagrees and holds that it is restricted to a Sefer Torah. The Rama (O”C 146) rules according to the Tosfos in Shabbos.

Rabbi Akiva Eiger (Teshuvah I, 58) questions the practice of placing one’s hand on top of a mezuzah, when the mezuzah is without any covering. He comments that the concept of placing one’s hand on the mezuzah is without a Talmudic source and should not take precedence over this halacha; it would be considered a mitzvah haba’ah b’aveirah. Thus, he recommends, if the mezuzah is uncovered, one should extend his sleeve over his hand.

The Rama (O”C 285) quotes the custom of placing one’s hand on the mezuzah from the Maharil.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Chagigah Daf 24 - Highlights

The Mishna had stated: A vessel combines all of its contents together for kodesh (if one piece becomes tamei, they all become tamei even if they are not touching each other), but not for terumah.

Rabbi Chanin cites the Scriptural source for this: It is written [Bamidbar 17:14]: One gold ladle of ten shekels, filled with incense. By the fact that the Torah said “one ladle,” and not “a ladle,” this teaches us that all the incense of kodesh was regarded as one. Since the verse is referring to kodesh, the rule is restricted to kodesh and not to terumah.

Rav Kahana asks from a Mishna in Eduyos [8:1]: Rabbi Akiva added the fine flour of kodesh, the incense, the frankincense and the coals to the rule that if a tevul yom (one who has immersed in a mikvah but still has tumah on him until nightfall) touched part of it, it renders all of it unfit.

It is evident from Rabbi Akiva that this is a merely a Rabbinic injunction and yet Rabbi Chanin derived this rule from a verse in the Torah, which would indicate that the rule is a Biblical one?

Rish Lakish answers in the name of Bar Kappara: It is indeed a Biblical rule, but only when a vessel is required for that particular substance, however, when a vessel is not required, the rule that the vessel combines all of its contents is only a Rabbinic one. Rabbi Akiva is referring to the remainder of the mincha, where there is no necessity to place it in a vessel.

The Gemora asks: This explains Rabbi Akiva’s testimony regarding flour; how would we explain his testimony regarding the incense and the frankincense?

Rav Nachman answered in the name of Rabbah bar Avuha: Rabbi Akiva is referring to a case where the incense or the frankincense was placed on a leather-spread (which is not a receptacle). The Biblical rule that a vessel can combine all of its contents is limited to a vessel that has an inside, but one that doesn’t (such as this leather-spread) will only combine its contents Rabbinically. (23b – 24a)

The Mishna had stated: Tumah of kodesh extends to a fourth level (revii), while that of terumah extends only to a third level (shlishi).

Rabbi Yosi taught in a braisa: How do we know that a revii by kodesh is pasul? (The term “tamei” describes something that it itself is contaminated and it can transmit tumah to another item; “pasul” means that it itself is contaminated, but it cannot transmit tumah to another item.) He answers that this is derived through a kal vachomer: We find by a mechusar kippurim (one who is lacking atonement) that he is permitted to eat terumah, nevertheless, he is forbidden from eating kodesh (this indicates that we are stricter in respect to kodesh than we are in regards to terumah); so a shlishi, which is pasul by terumah should certainly have the ability to render a revii by kodesh.

The Gemora states: A shlishi by kodesh is derived through a Scriptural verse. (24a)

The Mishna had stated: Regarding terumah, if one’s hand becomes tamei, the other hand remains tahor, while for kodesh, one must immerse both hands, because one hand contaminates the other for kodesh but not for terumah.

Rav Shizbi says: The Mishna’s rule only applies when the hand which is tamei is touching the hand which is tahor while the tahor hand is holding a consecrated item (the Chachamim were concerned that his tamei hand might come into contact with the kodesh); however, the consecrated item will not become pasul if the tamei hand touches the hand which is tahor and afterwards the tahor hand touches a consecrated item.

Abaye asks on Rav Shizbi from a braisa which would indicate that one hand can render the other hand tamei even if the tahor hand is not in contact with the kodesh. (24a)

Rish Lakish maintains that a hand which is tamei can render his other hand tamei, but it cannot render someone else’s hand tamei. Rabbi Yochanan disagrees and states: The hand which is tamei can render his own hand tamei and the hand of his friend, as well. Only the original hand which was tamei can render his friend’s hand tamei. When we say that one hand can render his other hand tamei, the meaning is that the second hand can now render kodesh unfit, but it cannot make kodesh tamei. (His second hand is regarded as a shlishi and it can only bring about a revii, which is pasul, but not tamei.)

The Gemora states: Rish Lakish retracted from his initial opinion and follows Rabbi Yochanan’s viewpoint. (24a – 24b)

The Mishna had stated: One may eat dry terumah foods with hands that are tamei, but not kodesh foods.

Rabbi Chanina ben Antignos taught in a braisa: (The significance of the food being dry is that it is not susceptible to become tamei – only food which was wet can become tamei.) What is the novelty in teaching that the kodesh can become tamei even though it is dry; kodesh can become tamei even without becoming wet through the principle of “the esteem for kodesh” prepares the foods to become tamei?

The Gemora answers that the Mishna is referring to a case where one’s friend stuck kodesh foods into his mouth or he stuck them in himself using a toothpick or a stick, and he wanted to eat a radish or onion of chulin with them. The Chachamim decreed that this should not be done when his hands are tamei because his hands which are tamei might come into contact with the kodesh in his mouth; they were not concerned regarding terumah and relied on the fact that he will be careful. This was only permitted if the chulin food was dry. If the chulin was wet, it would be forbidden for him to simultaneously eat the terumah since his tamei hand (a sheini) might touch the liquid on the chulin, rendering it a rishon, which will then make the chulin food into a sheini. Subsequently, the chulin food which is a sheini will render the terumah which is in his mouth into a shlishi. (24b)

The Mishna had stated: An onein (one whose close relative passed away and has not been buried yet), a mechusar kippurim (one who is lacking atonement) require immersion for kodesh, but not for terumah.

The Gemora asks: What is the reason for this?

The Gemora answers: Since they were forbidden from eating kodesh up until now, The Chachamim required them to immerse in a mikvah before eating kodesh. (They were concerned for the following: Just like they had diverted their attention from eating kodesh, they might also divert their attention from guarding themselves not to become tamei in a manner that would prevent them from eating kodesh.) (24b)

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Chagigah 23 - JUSTIFYING A CUSTOM REGARDING GEBROCHTS

Shoel U’meishiv (I: 1:130) issues a novel ruling based on our Gemora.

The Mishna had stated: One may carry terumah while he is carrying a midras (objects that became tamei when a zav, zavah or niddah place their weight on them – they are classified as an av hatumah and have the ability to contaminate people or utensils), but one may not carry kodesh while carrying a midras.

The Gemora asks: What is the reasoning for this prohibition?

Rav Yehudah says in the name of Shmuel: There was once an incident where a person was transporting a barrel of consecrated wine from one place to another and a strap from his sandal (which was tamei through midras) broke off, and he took it and placed it on the top of the barrel and it fell into the airspace of the barrel, and rendered the barrel and the consecrated wine tamei. It was at that time that they said: One may carry terumah while he is carrying a midras, but one may not carry kodesh while carrying a midras.

The Gemora asks: If so, they should have decreed regarding terumah, as well?

The Gemora answers: This Mishna is following the opinion of Rabbi Chananya ben Akavya, who maintains that when a decree was impelled because of a certain incident, it is limited to the same situation as the original incident, and since it occurred by kodesh, the decree was issued only in regards to kodesh and not to terumah.

The Shoel U’meishiv says: The obligation of eating matzah on Pesach, which is lechem oni, poor man’s bread (water and flour) is only on the first night of Pesach and not any other nights or days, including the second night. Eating lechem oni is because the Jewish people baked the dough before it had a chance to rise on the way out of Egypt. Since the mitzvah is based upon that incident and that occurred on the night of the fifteenth of Nissan, that is the only night that we have this obligation.

We know when the night of the fifteenth is, and we are not uncertain regarding the days of the new month. The Chachamim instituted that we must observe two days of Yom Tov since that it what they did in the times of the Beis Hamikdosh. Accordingly, we must fulfill all mitzvos on the second night, as well.

However, that is only regarding mitzvos that if we wouldn’t fulfill, it would be degrading for the Yom Tov. We are required to eat matzah and marror since otherwise, it would be apparent that we are not recognizing this night as a Yom Tov; however, matzah which is not lechem oni would not degrade the Yom Tov at all and therefore it would not be necessary. He cites a Beis Yosef as proof to this.

I heard that this could be the justification for the custom of not eating gebrochts only on the first night of Pesach. If the reason for not eating gebrochts on Pesach is because there is a concern that it might result in chametz, there is no distinction between the first night and all the other nights; but if the reason is based on lechem oni, there can be logic to say that it is only applicable on the first night.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Chagigah 23 - Highlights

The Mishna had stated: One may carry terumah while he is carrying a midras (objects that became tamei when a zav, zavah or niddah place their weight on them – they are classified as an av hatumah and have the ability to contaminate people or utensils), but one may not carry kodesh while carrying a midras.

The Gemora asks: What is the reasoning for this prohibition?

Rav Yehudah says in the name of Shmuel: There was once an incident where a person was transporting a barrel of consecrated wine from one place to another and a strap from his sandal (which was tamei through midras) broke off, and he took it and placed it on the top of the barrel and it fell into the airspace of the barrel, and rendered the barrel and the consecrated wine tamei. It was at that time that they said: One may carry terumah while he is carrying a midras, but one may not carry kodesh while carrying a midras.

The Gemora asks: If so, they should have decreed regarding terumah, as well?

The Gemora answers: This Mishna is following the opinion of Rabbi Chananya ben Akavya, who maintains that when a decree was impelled because of a certain incident, it is limited to the same situation as the original incident, and since it occurred by kodesh, the decree was issued only in regards to kodesh and not to terumah.

The Gemora inquires: The decree was issued regarding a sandal which was tamei; would the decree extend to one which is tahor (out of concern that this will lead to carrying one which was tamei)?

The decree was issued regarding an open barrel; would the decree extend to a closed barrel (out of concern that this will lead to carrying an open one)?

The Gemora inquires further: What would happen if one transgressed and did carry kodesh while carrying a midras? Does the kodesh become tamei?

The Gemora presents a dispute regarding this: Rabbi Ila says: It is tamei. Rabbi Zeira says: It is tahor. (22b – 23a)

The Mishna had stated: Utensils that were completed in a state of tahara still require immersion for kodesh, but not for terumah.

The Gemora inquires: Who completed these utensils? If a chaver completed them, there is no necessity for immersion. If an am haaretz completed them, why does the Mishna consider this a case where they were “completed in a state of tahara”?

Rabbah bar Shila answers in the name of Rav Masnah, who said in the name of Shmuel: The Mishna is referring to a case where a chaver completed it, but we are concerned that the utensil became tamei through the spittle of an am haaretz, and that is why an immersion is required.

The Gemora proceeds to analyze this explanation: When did the spittle fall on the utensil? If it fell prior to the completion of the utensil, it cannot become tamei at that time because it is not yet a utensil. He cannot mean that it fell afterwards because the chaver would certainly be careful that it shouldn’t become tamei.

The Gemora answers: Shmuel is referring to a case where the spittle fell on the utensil prior to its completion (when the chaver was not careful) and it was still moist at the time of completion (thus rendering the utensil tamei). (23a)

The Gemora infers from the Mishna that the utensil which is completed in a state of tahara requires immersion, but it does not require the passage of nightfall. (A person or utensil that becomes Biblically tamei and immersed in a mikvah is required to wait until the passage of nightfall to become completely tahor. After the immersion and prior to nightfall, he is referred to as a tevul yom.)

The Gemora states: The Mishna is not in accordance with Rabbi Eliezer. We have learned in a Mishna in Parah (5:4): Regarding a reed tube that one cut for putting the ashes of the Parah Adumah in it, Rabbi Eliezer says that he should immerse it immediately and Rabbi Yehoshua says that he first should render it tamei and then he should immerse it. This was done in order to negate the opinion of the Sadducees who maintained that the person burning the Parah Adumah and all its utensils must be completely tahor, i.e. having experienced nightfall. The Chachamim disagreed and maintained that even a tevul yom is valid to perform the services of the Parah Adumah.

The Gemora explains: It is understandable according to Rabbi Yehoshua that the utensil is rendered tamei first as a demonstration against the Sadducees since the utensil will be used despite the fact that it is a tevul yom; but according to Rabbi Eliezer, how is using this utensil that has not been contaminated negating the Sadducees viewpoint? If we will say that every utensil completed in a state of tahara requires the passage of nightfall, then it is understandable how we are repudiating their opinion because we are using this utensil after immersion, but prior to nightfall, despite the fact that it is a tevul yom; however, if every utensil completed in a state of tahara does not require the passage of nightfall, using this utensil will not serve as a demonstration to negate the Sadducees viewpoint. It is evident that Rabbi Eliezer maintains that every utensil completed in a state of tahara requires immersion and the passage of nightfall, and this is the proof that our Mishna does not follow Rabbi Eliezer’s opinion.

Rav said: Perhaps our Mishna is in accordance with Rabbi Eliezer. Even though every utensil completed in a state of tahara does not require the passage of nightfall, the tube cut for the Parah Adumah will require the passage of nightfall in order to be considered completely tahor since the Chachamim considered it like a corpse-contaminated object on the seventh day of its purification process. Using this tube without the passage of nightfall negates the opinion of the Sadducees. (23a – 23b)

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Chagigah 22 - AVOIDING STRIFE

There are numerous places throughout Chazal, where the sages permitted various things (that should have been prohibited) because otherwise it would crate animosity amongst each other. Here, in brief, are some of these situations.

*** If a Kohen Gadol became unfit on Yom Kippur and we appointed another Kohen Gadol to replace him for that day; the first one returns to his position and the second one cannot serve as a Kohen Gadol or as a Kohen Hedyot (common Kohen). He cannot serve as a regular Kohen because of the principle that one can ascend in matters of sanctity but one cannot descend in matters of sanctity. He cannot serve as a Kohen Gadol because this would create animosity between him and the original Kohen Gadol. There is an opinion that disagrees and allows the substitute Kohen Gadol to serve as a Kohen Gadol. (Yoma 12a)

*** Even according to the opinion mentioned above that we allow the substitute Kohen Gadol to serve as a Kohen Gadol, that is only by a similar type of Kohen Gadol; however, we do not allow the Kohen Gadol who was appointed to lead the battle to serve in the Bais HaMikdosh together with the other Kohen Gadol; this would create certain animosity.

*** We do not anoint two Kohanim Gedolim simultaneously because it will create animosity. (Yerushalmi Yoma 1:1)

*** One who makes a vow that his friend should eat with him (otherwise, he will be forbidden to derive benefit from him) and the friend does not trust the one who took the oath in regards to maaser; he is permitted to eat by him the first Shabbos (a marital feast) because otherwise it would create animosity. (D’mai 4:2)

*** One who is particular not to eat bread baked by a non-Jew is permitted to eat the bread if he is eating at the same table along with those that are not particular on this stringency. This is because otherwise, it would create animosity. He is not permitted to eat the butter of a gentile because it is not considered the primary part of the meal and he could say that he is not interested in eating butter now. (Beis Yosef in the name of Rabbeinu Simcha Y”D 112)

*** We are required to make Eruvei Chatzeros with a full loaf of bread and not with pieces since this will lead to strife among the partners; those who give full loaves might resent those who give pieces. (Eruvin 81a)

*** We should not have festivities for two brides in the same city unless there are enough people to bring about joy to each of them. Rabbi Shimon ben Elozar says: Even in that case it’s forbidden because one might be pretty and the other not; they might bestow more honor on one than the other and this will lead to animosity.

*** The Mishna in Taanis ruled that if it still did not rain after the seven fasts, they should conduct less business. They should not become involved with building, planting, marrying or greeting their friends. They should conduct their lives as if they were condemned by Hashem.

The Gemora elaborates on the ruling of the Mishna that one should not greet his friend. The Gemora states that Torah scholars should not greet each other at all. If an unlearned man greets a Torah scholar, he should respond in a low tone and in a somber manner because otherwise it would lead to strife amongst them.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Chagigah 22 - Highlights

The Gemora continues its discussion of the Mishna regarding the reason that the Chachamim issued a decree against immersing one utensil inside the other for kodesh.

The Gemora asks: What is the practical difference between the explanation of Rabbi Ila (It is because the weight of the inside utensil prevents the water from circulating freely between the two utensils; if this would occur, the immersion would not be valid because the water must touch every part of the utensil.) and the explanation of Rava (They were concerned that people might immerse needles or spinning hooks (small items) inside a utensil whose opening is not the required size of a skin bottle’s tube (if the opening is less than that, the immersion is not valid because we view the water inside the utensil as separate from the water in the mikvah).

The Gemora answers: A case that there would be a difference between them would be if one would fill a large basket or strainer with utensils and immerse them. There still would be a concern for a chatzitzah because the inner utensil would weigh down on the outer one; however, there would be no concern that people might immerse needles or spinning hooks inside a utensil whose opening is not the required size of a skin bottle’s tube because a large basket or strainer will always have a large opening and they would not be included in the decree. (22a)

The Gemora qualifies the ruling: One cannot immerse one utensil inside another if the opening is less than the size of a skin bottle’s tube is only when the outer utensil is tahor; however, if the outer utensil is tamei, we can utilize the principle of migu and say that since the immersion is valid in regards to the outside utensil (and it is evident that the water from the mikvah is connected to the inside of the outer utensil), it will be valid for the inner utensil, as well. The Gemora proves this from a Mishna in Mikvaos (6:2). (22a)

The Gemora states that the argument between Rava and Rabbi Ila is in fact a Tannaic dispute. We have learned in a braisa: If one would fill a large basket or strainer with utensils and immerse them, the utensils are tahor whether they will be used for terumah or even kodesh. (This is consistent with Rava’s viewpoint that the concern in the Mishna is because one might immerse needles or spinning hooks inside a utensil whose opening is not the required size of a skin bottle’s tube, and this is not applicable by a large basket or strainer since they will always have a large opening and there is no reason for a Rabbinic injunction.) Abba Shaul maintains that that the immersion is only valid for terumah, but not for kodesh. (This is consistent with Rabbi Ila’s viewpoint that the concern in the Mishna is on the account of chatzitzah and this would apply by a large basket or strainer, as well.)

The Gemora asks: If we are concerned that the inside utensil weighs down on the outer one and thus prevents the water from circulating freely between them, why is the immersion valid for terumah?

The Gemora answers: Who is this decree for? Obviously, for the chaveirim (people that are meticulous regarding the performance of mitzvos), since the am haaretz (one who is not particular in regards to the laws of tumah and tahara) will not be listening to us regarding how to make a valid immersion. Accordingly, there is no basis for issuing a decree regarding terumah for the chaveirim will ensure that the inside utensil is not weighing down on the outer one resulting in a chatzitzah, and if he observes that there is a concern, he will undoubtedly raise the inside utensil.

The Gemora asks: If so, let it be valid for kodesh, as well?

The Gemora answers: We are concerned that an am haaretz will observe a chaver immersing one utensil inside of another and he will not know that the chaver is making certain that there is no chatzitzah, and he will subsequently do the same.

The Gemora asks: If so, we should disqualify the immersion for terumah, as well (perhaps an am haaretz will observe a chaver immersing one utensil inside of another and he will not know that the chaver is making certain that there is no chatzitzah, and he will subsequently do the same and use the utensil for terumah)?

The Gemora answers: Regarding terumah we have an option, that we will not accept terumah from an am haaretz.

The Gemora asks: If that is an option, why don’t we say the same thing by kodesh and not accept kodoshim from them?

The Gemora answers: This would create animosity between the am haaratzim and the chaveirim.

The Gemora asks: Won’t there be animosity by the fact that we are not accepting terumah from them.

The Gemora answers: No, because the am haaratzim always have the alternative of giving their terumah to a Kohen am haaretz. (22a)

The Gemora asks: Why do we permit the immersion of one utensil inside another for terumah; perhaps an am haaretz will observe this and do the same for his utensils, and subsequently a chaver will borrow the utensil from the am haaretz and use it for terumah? The Gemora cites a Mishna in Idiyos (1:14) where it emerges that the Tannaim maintain that we are concerned for borrowing.

The Gemora answers: If we borrow from them, we will immerse the utensil prior to using it.

The Gemora asks: Why is it necessary for the chaver to immerse the utensil after borrowing it; didn’t we learn in a braisa that an am haaretz is believed that an immersion was done in regards to corpse tumah?

Abaye answers: He is believed in respect to his body but not in regards to his utensils.

Rava answers: He is believed to say that he never immersed one utensil inside another, but he is not believed to say that he immersed the utensil inside another one, but the opening was at least the size of a skin bottle’s tube.

The Gemora cites a braisa to support Rava: An am haaretz is believed that his produce is not in a state where it is susceptible to become tamei (it never got wet), but he is not believed to say that it was susceptible to become tamei, but it didn’t occur. (22a – 22b)

The Mishna had stated: Different parts of the utensil are considered separate for terumah, but not for kodesh (if one part becomes tamei, the rest of the utensil becomes tamei).

The Gemora explains this by citing a Mishna in Keilim (25:6): If a wooden or metal utensil becomes tamei from a liquid that touches the outside of the utensil (this tumah is only Rabbinic because a utensil can only become tamei from an av hatumah, i.e. any original source of tumah, such as the spit or urine from a niddah or a zav); only the outside of the utensil will become tamei; the inside, the lip, and its handles will remain tahor. (If the situation would involve a Biblical tumah, the entire utensil would become tamei.) If the utensil became tamei on the inside, the entire utensil becomes tamei. (22b)

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Chagigah 21 - Food For Thought

*** There are eleven halachos (stringencies that apply by kodesh and not terumah) listed in the Mishna and yet Rabbi Ila said that there were only ten. It is evident that two of them are based upon the same reasoning; the first (one utensil inside the other) and the fifth (a garment with a knot) are both because of chatzitzah.)

If they are both on the account of chatzitzah, why did the Mishna separate them; shouldn’t they be listen one after the other?

(Turei Even, Merumei Sadeh)


*** The Mishna had stated: We may immerse utensils inside of other utensils in a mikvah for terumah, but not for kodesh.

Rabbi Ila answered: It is because the weight of the inside utensil prevents the water from circulating freely between the two utensils; if this would occur, the immersion would not be valid because the water must touch every part of the utensil. (This case would not constitute a Biblical chatzitzah (an interposition between the water and the utensil) because the water does find a way to pass through the utensils, but since it appears like a chatzitzah, the Chachamim were stringent regarding kodesh, but not in regards to terumah.)

In the sefer Masaas Binyomin (81), he rules that a woman who is physically unable to stand can be immersed in the mikvah while she is laying on a mat that is not susceptible to tumah.

The Sidrei Tahara (198: 47) asks from our Gemora: Shouldn’t her weight on the mat constitute a chatzitzah; the water will not be able to circulate freely between the woman and the mat?

I had a similar question on the Gemora above: If a wave that consisted of forty se’ah separated from the sea and fell on a person or utensils that were tamei, they become tahor. The Gemora explains that the Mishna is referring to a case where the person is sitting on the shore waiting for the wave to separate from the sea and fall on him or on the utensils. It is evident from our Gemora that even though the person did not directly immerse the utensils in the water; he was merely anticipating that the wave will detach itself from the sea and fall on the contaminated utensils, this is sufficient, provided that he has intention that the water should purify the utensils.

How does the water get in between the person or the utensils and the ground on the shore?


*** Dayan Weiss (4:35) has a teshuva regarding the validity of immersion while wearing a bathing suit.



*** Shoel Umeishiv (I:2:122) writes: “In the year 5615, I was learning Meseches Chagigah on the yahrtzeit of my mother because my father told me that the holy seforim say that it is beneficial to study Meseches Chagigah on a yahrtzeit.”

What is the source for this and what is the reasoning?

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Chagigah 21 - Highlights

The Mishna had stated: We may immerse utensils inside of other utensils in a mikvah for terumah, but not for kodesh.

The Gemora asks: Why is this forbidden to do by kodesh?

Rabbi Ila answered: It is because the weight of the inside utensil prevents the water from circulating freely between the two utensils; if this would occur, the immersion would not be valid because the water must touch every part of the utensil. (This case would not constitute a Biblical chatzitzah (an interposition between the water and the utensil) because the water does find a way to pass through the utensils, but since it appears like a chatzitzah, the Chachamim were stringent regarding kodesh, but not in regards to terumah.)

The Gemora asks: One of the other stringencies listed later in the Mishna is on account of chatzitzah; this would imply that the reason for the first stringency is not because of chatzitzah. The Mishna had stated: When immersing garments for kodesh, one must first untie them and dry them, but for terumah one may immerse them while they are knotted (and/or wet). The reason for this halacha is because of chatzitzah (the water cannot touch every part of the garment when it is tied); shouldn’t the first stringency be on account of something else?

The Gemora answers: Both of these stringencies are in fact because of chatzitzah, and they are both necessary. The first stringency is based upon the logic that the weight of the utensil causes the chatzitzah; this does not apply by the latter case, which is referring to a garment where there is no weight. The second stringency is based upon the logic that a knot prevents the water from touching all parts of the garment; this does not apply by the former case, where the water can cause the inside utensil to float and the water will be able to circulate freely. (21a – 21b)

The Gemora comments: Rabbi Ila is consistent with a different statement that he said in the name of Rabbi Chanina bar Papa. He said: There are ten stringencies for kodesh listed in the Mishna. (This is the proof to the consistency: There are eleven halachos listed in the Mishna and yet Rabbi Ila said that there were only ten. It is evident that two of them are based upon the same reasoning; the first (one utensil inside the other) and the fifth (a garment with a knot) are both because of chatzitzah.)

Rabbi Ila continues: The first five apply to kodesh and to chulin which was made according to the tahara standard of kodesh (pious people would treat chulin in their house as if it was kodoshim in order to train the members of their family with these stringencies). The last five only apply to kodesh.

The Gemora asks: Why is there this distinction?

The Gemora answers: The first five are stricter because they have legitimate Biblical concerns; the last five are merely Rabbinic decrees and therefore they apply to kodesh, but not to chulin which was made according to the tahara standard of kodesh. (21b)

Rava presents an alternative explanation to the Mishna: The reason that the Chachamim issued a decree against immersing one utensil inside the other is because they were concerned that people might immerse needles or spinning hooks (small items) inside a utensil whose opening is not the required size of a skin bottle’s tube (if the opening is less than that, the immersion is not valid because we view the water inside the utensil as separate from the water in the mikvah).

The Gemora cites a Mishna in Mikvaos (6:7) which states: In order to connect a mikvah which is lacking forty se’ah to a mikvah which contains forty se’ah, there must be an opening in the wall separating the two mikvaos at least the size of a skin bottle’s tube. The Mishna explains that we measure the outer circumference of the tube, which the Chachamim established to be where one can freely rotate his two fingers inside the hole. (The connection of the two mikvaos is known as hashakah.) (21b – 22a)

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Chagigah 20 - Food For Thought

*** Our Gemara states that one must be more scrupulous regarding utensils that are used on Shabbos than those that are used on weekdays.

The Mabit writes that the Gemara states that one is required to purify himself prior to a festival by immersing in a mikveh. The Mabit wonders why one would not also be required to immerse himself prior to Shabbos? The Mabit answers that one is not required to immerse in a mikveh prior to Shabbos because the sanctity of Shabbos will cleanse the person from any impurities.

Reb Yosef Engel questions this answer, as our Gemara clearly states that one is required to be more scrupulous on Shabbos regarding matters of impurity.

*** The Gemora states that a person cannot watch something that is in his friend's hand. We need to be certain that the utensil did not become tamei; only the holder can provide us with that assurance.

The Minchas Chinuch (10) proves from here that whenever intention is needed, the one who is performing the action must be the one who has the intention. Therefore, he rules that a non-Jew, mute or minor cannot knead the dough for matzah even if there will be someone else watching. Only the person kneading the dough can be certain that it did not become chametz.

Other Acharonim disagree and differentiate between those with intellect and those without. If the person has his own intellect, then he cannot be watched; however, a mute or a minor that have no intellect on their own may be watched.

*** The Mishna states: If one hand became tamei, the other is tamei as well; but only regarding kodoshim and not in respect for terumah.

The Minchas Chinuch (106)writes that if a Kohen loses concentration regarding one of his hands during the Bais HaMikdosh service; he has to sanctify that hand again, but not the other hand.

The distinction is that the mitzvah for the Kohen to wash his hands and feet prior to performing the sacrificial service is a Biblical one; our Mishna is discussing Rabbinical stringencies that were applied to kodoshim.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Chagigah 19 - Praying without the Proper Intention

In the sefer Torah Lishma from the Ben Ish Chai, the following inquiry was asked: Our sages said that prayer without the proper kavanah (intent) is akin to a body without a soul. This being the case, what would be the purpose of prayer when one is unable to concentrate during his Tefillah due to the worries that weigh on his mind? Would such a prayer be accepted?

Furthermore, if one understands the words of tefillah and the basic translation of the prayers but does not comprehend the secrets hidden in the tefillos, then the depths of the prayers revealed to us by the Zohar and the Arizal will remain a mystery to him. One who is capable of performing a mitzvah in its entirety but does not grasp the hidden meanings of the mitzvah would seem to be missing an integral part of the mitzvah. Most people are on this level as they fulfill mitzvos and pray three times a day according to their basic understanding and because it is the will of Hashem. Is it possible, then, that most of our generation is deficient in tefillah and the performance of mitzvos due to a lack of comprehension regarding the profound implications of prayer and mitzvah performance?

The Ben Ish Chai responds: One who cannot concentrate on his prayers because he is entertaining other thoughts during tefillah should nevertheless continue to pray. This can be proven from the following Zohar in Parashas Vayechi: Rav Chizkiyah said that it is said that one should first prepare the praise of his Master and then pray. What should one do, however, if his heart is heavy and he wishes to pray, yet, since he is in distress he cannot properly formulate the praise of his Master? Rabbi Yosi responded that despite the fact that he cannot focus properly on his prayers and he will not be able to formulate the praise of his Master properly, he should still formulate the praises of his Master and he should pray. This is what it is said, a prayer of Dovid: Hear HaShem, what is righteous, be attentive to my supplication. First, hear HaShem righteous, as this is the formulation of praises for his Master, and subsequently, be attentive to my supplication, [give ear to my prayer]. One who is capable of formulating the praises of his Master and does not do so, regarding him it is said, even if you were to intensify your prayer, I will not listen.

In regards to the second question, the Ben Ish Chai writes that one is obligated to attempt to learn and understand the secrets of Hashem as Dovid told his son Shlomo: Know the G-d of your father and serve Him. Nonetheless, one who did not merit understanding these concepts and concentrates on the basic translation of the words and performs a mitzva with all its intricacies, his tefillah and mitzvos are considered complete and they are not deficient. This idea can be proven from the words of the Zohar in Parashas Yisro: If a mitzvah comes his way and he focuses on it, he is meritorious. If one did not have the proper intention he is meritorious as he has performed the will of his Master. Yet, he is not deemed to be like one who has fulfilled HaShem’s will selflessly and has performed the deed with the intention of fulfilling HaShem’s will for the sake of HaShem’s glory like one who does not know how to think. The reason for this is because the matter is dependant on the will performed selflessly and with the action selflessly performed below, the action above is removed and is purely rectified. In a similar vein, the action of the body rectifies the action of the soul with that will, as HaShem desires the heart and will of a person. Nonetheless, one needs to act wholeheartedly, which is the essence of everything, and regarding this Dovid prayed and said, may the pleasantness of the Lord, our G-d, be upon us, our handiwork, establish for us. No man is wise enough to align his will and his heart to rectify a matter completely, and for that reason he prays, our handiwork, establish for us. What is meant by the words establish for us? Establish and rectify Your rectifications above appropriately upon us. This, despite the fact that we are not capable of aligning our will completely. Rather, we perform the action, and You establish our handiwork. One who is on that level who requires rectification, establish it as one so that this matter should be rectified properly.

It thus emerges that this is precisely what Dovid requested of HaShem; a mitzvah or tefillah should not be regarded as deficient because of one’s lack of understanding regarding the secrets that are contained in the mitzvos. Rather it should be considered complete and whole without the slightest blemish.

For this reason our sages have instructed us to recite the tefillah of vihi noam prior to the performance of any mitzvah or the recital of any tefillah. The
recital of this verse inspires Dovid’s prayer and our deeds will be accepted completely despite the fact that we did not have the proper intention.

Rabbeinu Chaim, son of Rabbeinu Yitzchak, one of the Rishonim quotes our Gemora: We have learned in a Mishna in Mikvaos (5:6): If a wave that consisted of forty se’ah separated from the sea and fell on a person or utensils that were tamei, they become tahor. The Gemora explains that the Mishna is referring to a case where the person is sitting on the shore waiting for the wave to separate from the sea and fall on him or on the utensils. It is evident from our Gemora that even though the person did not directly immerse the utensils in the water; he was merely anticipating that the wave will detach itself from the sea and fall on the contaminated utensils, this is sufficient, provided that he has intention that the water should purify the utensils.

The Gemora in Chulin (31) states a similar halacha regarding a woman who was a menstruant. If water fell on her and her friend anticipated this and had intention for her, the immersion would be valid even though the menstruant herself was not intending for this to happen.

It would follow that we can apply this principle to other mitzvos as well. One who bakes matzah must have intention that it is being baked for the commandment of matzah. If one was baking without the proper intention, but another person was observing and did have the proper intention, the baking is valid and the matzah may be used for the mitzvah.

Rabbeinu Chaim concludes: If the intention of one’s fellow can facilitate the fulfillment of the mitzvah for his friend, then certainly the intentions of the Holy One, Blessed is He can achieve the same result. We entreat of HaShem before our prayers and prior to the performance of a mitzvah that He should establish our handiwork and rectify our actions for we are not capable of aligning our will completely. It is our mission to perform the actions to the best of our capabilities and Hashem will rectify the deeds appropriately.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Chagigah 18 - Placing a Stumbling Block by a Rabbinic Prohibition

There is a matter of dispute among the Rishonim if the prohibition against performing labor on Chol Hamoed (the intermediate days of Pesach and Sukkos) is Biblical (Rashi) or Rabbinic (Tosfos).

Our Gemora cites Scriptural verses illustrating that it is forbidden to perform labor during Chol Hamoed. Tosfos states that it is implicit from the Gemora that this is a Biblical prohibition.

Tosfos asks: It is permitted to work on Chol Hamoed to prevent an irretrievable loss or various types of labor; this would be understandable if the prohibition would be Rabbinic in nature, however, if it is a Biblical prohibition, where do we find distinctions in the types of work that some will be forbidden and some will be permitted?

Tosfos concludes that the prohibition against working during Chol Hamoed is only a Rabbinic injunction and the verses cited are merely Scriptural supports for this decree.

Tosfos asks from a Gemora in Avodah Zarah (22a) which states that there would be a prohibition of placing a stumbling block before a blind man (lifnei iver) by performing labor on Chol Hamoed. (One is forbidden from assisting another fellow to violate a prohibition, where the sinner could not accomplish the transgression without his aid.)

The Reshash explains Tosfos: The prohibition of lifnei iver is only applicable by a Biblical prohibition and not when it pertains to a Rabbinical injunction; accordingly, Tosfos asks why the Gemora states that lifnei iver applies by the prohibition of working on Chol Hamoed, when that is only a Rabbinic injunction.

Tosfos in Avodah Zarah (22a) states explicitly that the commandment of lifnei iver applies by a Rabbinic prohibition, as well. The Steipler Gaon explains a different Tosfos (Avodah Zarah 15b) that Tosfos is uncertain regarding this principle and it is indeed a dispute among two answers in Tosfos if lifnei iver applies by a Rabbinic prohibition or not.

This principle requires an explanation. Why should lifnei iver not apply by a Rabbinic prohibition? One is forbidden from providing flawed advice to his fellow (the Minchas Chinuch discusses if giving shoddy counsel violates this prohibition); every Rabbinic decree entails a Biblical prohibition of not swaying from the words of our sages.

What is the logic to differentiate between assisting someone to violate a Biblical prohibition or one that is merely Rabbinic?

Don't forget to vote please - thanks.

Torah Blog

New Blog

Difference Maker Blog

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Chagigah 18 - Highlights

The Gemora cites several Scriptural verses illustrating that it is forbidden to perform labor during Chol Hamoed (Intermediary Days).

The Gemora concludes: The Torah delegated the authority to the Chachamim to decide which days are Yom Tov (through their declaration of Rosh Chodesh) and all types of labor is forbidden and which days are Chol Hamoed when certain types of work is permitted; and it was entrusted to the Chachamim to decide which type of labor is prohibited during Chol Hamoed and which types will be permitted. (18a)

The Mishna had stated: It is permitted to eulogize and fast on the Day of Slaughter in order to counter the opinion of the Sadducees, who claimed that Shavuos is always on a Sunday.

The Gemora asks from a braisa: There was once an incident where Alexa died in the city of Lod and everyone came to eulogize him. Rabbi Tarfon prevented them from doing so because it was the Festival of Shavuos.

The Gemora analyzes the braisa: The braisa cannot be referring to the actual day of Shavuos because they would not have even attempted to eulogize him then; it obviously is referring to the Day of Slaughter and nevertheless, Rabbi Tarfon ruled that eulogies are forbidden. This contradicts the ruling of our Mishna.

The Gemora answers: The braisa is referring to a case where Shavuos fell out during a weekday and the Day of Slaughter was not on a Sunday; there was no reason to permit eulogizing on that day. The Mishna was referring to a case where Shavuos fell out on Shabbos and the Day of Slaughter was on Sunday; they permitted eulogies on that day to counter the opinion of the Sadducees, who claimed that Shavuos is always on a Sunday. (18a)

The Mishna states: One is required to wash his hands before involving himself with chulin, maaser (maaser sheini, a tenth of one’s produce that he brings to Yerushalayim and eats there in the first, second, fourth and fifth years of the Shemitah cycle) and terumah. (The Chachamim declared that unrinsed hands are considered tamei because they probably touched unclean parts of his body. They decreed that only his hands will be rendered tamei, but not the rest of his body.) If he wants to eat Kodoshim (sacrifices that are eaten by the owner or the Kohen); he must immerse his hands in a body of water that contains forty se’ah. Prior to handling the chatas water (the water and ashes mixture of the parah adumah used to purify people and tools that have been contaminated through corpse-tumah).

The Mishna continues: One who immersed himself with the intention of purifying himself for chulin, is prohibited from eating maaser sheini; one who immersed himself with the intention of purifying himself for maaser sheini, is prohibited from eating terumah; one who immersed himself with the intention of purifying himself for terumah, is prohibited from eating kodoshim; one who immersed himself with the intention of purifying himself for kodoshim, is prohibited from handling the chatas water. (An immersion with the intention of becoming pure for items of lesser stringency will not be effective for items of greater stringency.) If he immerses himself with the intention of becoming pure for items of a greater stringency, he is permitted to eat items that have a lesser degree of stringency. If he immersed himself with no intention whatsoever (only to wash himself); it is regarded as if he didn’t immerse himself at all.

The Mishna continues: The clothing of an am haaretz (one who is not particular in regards to the laws of tumah and tahara) is regarded as tumas midras (objects that become tamei when a zav, zavah or niddah place their weight on them – they are classified as an av hatumah and have the ability to contaminate people or utensils) for the perushim (people that are meticulous about eating their chulin in a state of tahara). The clothing of the perushim is regarded as tumas madras for those that are eating terumah. The clothing of those eating terumah is regarded as tumas madras for those that are eating kodoshim. The clothing of those eating kodoshim is regarded as tumas madras for those that are handling the chatas water.

The Mishna concludes: Yosef ben Yoezer was the most devout Kohen, but his napkin was regarded as tumas madras for those that are eating kodoshim. Yochanan ben Gudgeda used to eat all his chulin food as if it was kodoshim his entire lifetime and yet his napkin was regarded as tumas madras for those that are handling the chatas water. (18b)

The Gemora asks: Do chulin and maaser require the washing of one’s hands? The Gemora cites a Mishna in Bikkurim which explicitly states that one must wash his hands for terumah but not for maaser or chulin.

The Gemora answers: There is actually a dispute between Rabbi Meir and the Chachamim if one is required to wash his hands prior to eating maaser.

The Gemora asks: The contradiction regarding maaser has been answered, but not the contradiction pertaining to chulin.

The Gemora answers: Our Mishna is referring to eating bread; one is required to wash his hands prior to eating bread, even if it is only chulin. The Mishna in Bikkurim is discussing the eating of other produce; there it is not necessary to wash one’s hands. (18b)

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Chagigah 17 - Shmini Atzeres - Independent Festival or Not?

The Beis Yosef (Y"D 120:20) cites a Yerushalmi in Nedarim: Rabbi Yochanan says: One who makes an oath against drinking wine on the "Chag," is prohobited from drinking wine on Sukkos, including Shmini Atzeres. The Beis Yosef writes that even though Shmini Atzeres is a festival by itself; that is only in respect to the six laws delineated in the Gemora, however in regard to the manner in which people speak, it is included in the festival of Sukkos, and the laws of vows are based on the way people speak.

The Meiri comments: Shmini Atzeres is only included in his vow if he just said "Chag," however if he explicitly said "Chag Hasukkos," Shmini Atzeres will not be included in his vow.

Proof is brought from here to one who mistakenly said "Chag Hasukkos" in Shemoneh Esrei instead of "Shmini Atzeres"; he has not fulfilled his obligation and must recite Shemoneh Esrei again.

The Turei Even (Megillah 5a) disagrees and he states that one who mistakenly said "Chag Hasukkos" in Shemoneh Esrei instead of "Shmini Atzeres" would not be required to repeat Shemoneh Esrei. His proof is from our Gemora which states that Shmini Atzeres is considered part of the compensation period for the korbanos of the first day of Sukkos. Furthermore, one who vows to bring a korban has three festivals to bring it before he will have transgressed the prohibition against delaying. If the third festival is Sukkos, he will not violate this prohibition until after Shmini Atzeres.

The Nishmas Adam rules that even though Shmini Atzeres is an independent festival, it is nevertheless related to Sukkos by the fact that one still eats in the sukkah and therefore one who mistakenly said "Chag Hasukkos" in Shemoneh Esrei instead of "Shmini Atzeres" would not be required to repeat Shemoneh Esrei.

Read more!