ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler of Kollel Iyun Hadaf
Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld
CHAGIGAH 21 - dedicated in honor of the Bris of Elchanan Naftali Solomon in Yerushalayim (on 5 Iyar) by his father, Oren Solomon, and his grandfather, Reb Shmuel Solomon of N.Y.
(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 them both?
(c) We answer that both cases do indeed need to be mentioned. We would not know the Chumra of ...
1. ... the Seifa ('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 from the Seifa - 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 there is non-existent here, the decree does not apply here.
(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. 'Kli b'Toch Kli' (because of Chatzitzah), 'Achorayim v'Toch ... ' (Mashkeh Zav v'Zavah), 'Nosei es ha'Midras' (Midras ha'Zav), 'Bigdei Ochlei Kodesh' (Shema Yashvah Aleihen Ishto Nidah) and 'Kelim ha'Nigmarin b'Taharah' (the spittle of an Am ha'Aretz, who may be a Zav) - are all decrees because of Tum'ah d'Oraisa (as indicated).
2. 'ha'Kli Metzaref ... ', 'ha'Revi'i ba'Kodesh', 'Im Nitma'as Achas mi'Yadav, Matbil Shteihem' 'Ein Ochlin Ochlin Neguvin b'Yadayim Meso'avos b'Kodesh' and 'ha'Onen u'Mechusar Kipurim Tzerichin Tevilah l'Kodesh' - are all pure d'Rabanans.
(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 Kodesh exclusively.
(a) Rava disagrees with Rebbi Ila. He does not want to ascribe the Chumra of Kodesh in the Reisha (of Toveling one vessel inside another) to Chatzitzah - because that is the reason in the Seifa (untying the knot before Toveling).
(b) He therefore ascribes it to - a decree that one might come to Tovel pins and needles of Hekdesh inside a vessel whose mouth does not have the Shi'ur of 'k'Shefoferes ha'Nod'.
(c) The significance of the Shi'ur 'k'Shefoferes ha'Nod' (the circumference of a bamboo cane that one places in the opening of a leather flask) in the Mishnah in Mikva'os is - that a breach of that size in a wall diving two Mikva'os neither of which contain a Shi'ur Mikvah, combines them.
(d) One measures it - by placing one's fore and middle fingers in the breach and swiveling them round. If one can do that, then the two Mikva'os are considered joined.
(a) According to Rava - the Mishnah lists eleven Chumros of Kodesh over Terumah (including 'Matir u'Menagev v'Kosher' - not included in Rav Ila's list).
(b) Out of these - the first six extend to Chulin she'Na'asu al Taharas ha'Kodesh, the last five apply to Kodesh only.