ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler of Kollel Iyun Hadaf
Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld
(a) The difference between Rava (who gives the reason for the prohibition of Toveling one vessel inside another by Kodesh as a decree, in case one comes to Tovel in a vessel with a narrow mouth), and Rebbi Ila (who ascribes it to Chatzitzah), manifests itself in a case of a Sal or a Gargusni - (a large basket) ...
(b) ... which will be forbidden according to Rebbi Ila (seeing as Chatzitzah applies to it just as it applies to other vessels), but permitted according to Rava (since they never have a mouth that measures less than a 'k'Shefoferes ha'Nod').
(c) Rava in fact, follows his own ruling elsewhere, where he said that if someone ...
1. ... fills a basket or a Gargusni with vessels and Tovels them - the vessels are Tahor even as regards Kodesh (as we just explained).
2. ... divides a Mikvah with a basket or a Gargusni - his Tevilah is invalid, since it is now like two Mikva'os, in spite of the spaces between the wickerwork. And he compares this to a fountain (see Gilyon Maharsha) which sprouts less than forty Sa'ah of water, and in which Tevilah is invalid, despite the fact that it is joined to a river by means of tiny holes in the ground.
(a) Someone who Tovels in a Mikvah of forty Sa'ah which is divided by a basket or a Gargusni is not Tahor - because he did not Tovel in a Mikvah of forty Sa'ah.
(b) If he Tovels pins and needles of Hekdesh in a vessel whose mouth is less than a 'k'Shefoferes ha'Nod' which itself requires Tevilah, the Tevilah is valid - because of a 'Migo': since the Tevilah is effective as regards the vessel itself, it is also effective as regards the pins and needles that are inside it.
(c) The Mishnah in Mikva'os states 'Kelim she'Mil'an Kelim v'Hitbilan, Harei Eilu Tehorin'. The Tana is referring to Terumah, and the vessels are Tahor even if the mouth of the outer vessel measures less than a k'Shefoferes ha'Nod'. When the Tana continues 'v'Im Lo Taval Mayim ha'Me'uravin, ad she'Yih'yu Me'uravin k'Shefoferes ha'Nod' - he means that if the outer vessel itself does not require Tevilah, then its mouth must be at least the Shi'ur of 'k'Shefoferes ha'Nod' for the vessels inside it to be Tahor.
(a) In fact, Rava and Rav Ila is a Machlokes Tana'im. The Tana Kama of the Beraisa (with whom Rava conforms) learns that
'Sal v'Gargusni she'Mil'an Kelim v'Hitbilan Bein l'Kodesh Bein l'Terumah, Tehorin'. Rebbi Ilya holds like Aba Shaul - who says 'l'Terumah, Aval Lo l'Kodesh'.
(b) Despite the fact that Aba Shaul is talking about Chaverim, he is nevertheless worried about Chatzitzah, because even though, the Chaver will lift up the inner vessel so that it should not be Chotzetz - an Am ha'Aretz might see him Toveling one inside the other, do likewise, without being careful to lift up the inner vessel.
(c) Yet he permits it with regard to Terumah - because whatever the Am ha'Aretz does, we will not accept the Terumah from him.
(d) We will accept Kodesh from Am-ha'Aretz - to avoid Eivah (undue Machlokes), but not Terumah, which he can offer to his Am-ha'Aretz friends.
(a) The Tana who holds of 'Eivah' is Rebbi Yosi - who says that one may accept wine for the Nesachim and oil for the Menachos all the year round ...
(b) ... to avoid the Amei ha'Aretz going their own way, building their own Bamah and offering on it their own Parah Adumah.
(c) Rav Papa says - that, based on Rebbi Yosi's opinion, we accept testimony from Amei ha'Aretz nowadays.
(d) We learned earlier that it is permitted to Tovel one vessel inside another by Terumah, since one does not accept Terumah from an Am ha'Aretz. Based on the Mishnah in Eduyos(which we are about to cite) we ask on this 'v'Nichush l'She'eilah?', which means - Why do we not suspect that someone may borrow a Terumah vessel from him?
(a) In the Mishnah in Eduyos, Beis Hillel maintain that sealed earthenware vessels save whatever is inside them. This Halachah incorporates two possible cases: either an earthenware vessel containing Taharos in a room in which a dead person is lying - or when the dead person is lying in the house, the Taharos in the attic, and the earthenware vessel is blocking the skylight.
(b) Beis Shamai say - that the earthenware vessel saves only food, drink and earthenware vessels from becoming Tamei.
(c) Beis Shamai declare food, drink and earthenware vessels, Tahor - because they cannot be Toveled, and are therefore fit only for himself (seeing as Chaverim will not accept them from him), and he will eat them anyway.
(d) Other vessels are not Tahor, on the other hand - because they can be Toveled, and if he is told that they are Tamei, he will Tovel them before lending them to a Chaver (who will not know that they still require Haza'ah on the third and seventh days).
(a) Rebbi Yehoshua considered Beis Shamai's opinion a farce - because, how is it possible for the earthenware vessel which is supposed to protect the food, the drink and the earthenware vessels to be Tamei (see Rabeinu Chananel), and its contents Tahor (because whatever is itself Tamei, does not protect its contents from becoming Tamei)?
(b) It can be compared, says Rebbi Yehoshua - to saying that, when a Tamei woman is kneading dough in a dish, the woman and the dish are Tamei, and the dough, Tahor; or that a jug which is Tamei Mes which is full of liquid, is Tamei Mes and the liquid, Tahor.
(c) He changed his tune however, when a Talmid of Beis Shamai presented him with Beis Shamai's reason for declaring the food Tahor - because if you tell him otherwise, he will not listen to you anyway.
(d) If you would inform the Am ha'Aretz that his food was Tamei - he would probably tell you that his food was Tahor and it was yours that was Tamei.
(a) When Rebbi Yehoshua heard that Talmid's explanation - he prostrated himself on Beis Shamai's graves and begged for forgiveness. If the hidden things of Beis Shamai are so correct, he declared, then how much more so those things that are revealed.
(b) His teeth turned black - from all the fasts that he undertook for the rest of his life.
(c) We learn from Beis Shamai's response 'she'Taharaso L'cha v'Lo' - that Chaverim do tend to borrow Terumah objects from Amei ha'Aretz.
(d) We nevertheless permit vessels that were Toveled inside other vessels, without worrying that the Am ha'Aretz will subsequently Tovel his vessels inside a vessel with a mouth that measures less than the Shi'ur of 'k'Shefoferes ha'Nod' - because even if he does and a Chaver borrows it from him, the Chaver will first Tovel it before using it.
(a) Even assuming that the borrower Tovels the vessel, Beis Hillel could not counter Beis Shamai in the same way (by declaring all vessels inside the earthenware Tamei vessels should be Tahor, since the borrower will Tovel them anyway) - because, they are talking about Tum'as Mes, which also requires Haza'ah on the third and the seventh days, and one does not generally borrow vessels for as long as seven days.
(b) To reconcile the fact that we do not believe Amei ha'Aretz regarding Tevilah, with the Beraisa 'Ne'emanim Amei ha'Aretz al Taharas Tevilas Tamei Mes', Abaye differentiates between Tevilas Gufo and Tevilas Kelim - i.e. he is believed regarding Tevilas Gufo, but not regarding Tevilas Kelim.
(c) Rava establishes both Beraisos by Tevilas Kelim - and he resolves the discrepancy by establishing the Beraisa which says that he is believed when he says that he did not Tovel one Kli inside another one at all; whereas the Beraisa which says that he is not, speaks when he claims that he did Tovel one vessel inside another, but not inside a vessel with a mouth that measures less than a 'k'Shefoferes ha'Nod'.
(d) We have a precedent for this distinction from a Beraisa regarding Amei ha'Aretz with regard to fruit that is Muchshar l'Kabel Tum'ah - where they are believed to say that fruit was not Muchshar l'Kabeil Tum'ah at all, but not to say that it was Muchshar l'Kabel Tum'ah, but did not subsequently become Tamei.
(a) If a Chaver claims that it is the third day since his Tum'ah, he is sprinkled immediately - whereas an Am ha'Aretz has to wait until the third day after his arrival, when he is sprinkled once, and then again, on the seventh day.
(b) In spite of this - Abaye believes an Am ha'Aretz when he says that he Toveled at the end, precisely because we are so strict with him regarding the Haza'ah. Because he will be afraid not to Tovel, in case he is made to start all over again.
(a) In light of what we learned in our Mishnah (regarding 'Achorayim, v'Toch u'Beis ha'Tzevitah'), the Din of a vessel which, besides the inside and the bottom, also has a lip, or a handle, if ...
1. ... the back became Tamei through a Tum'ah d'Rabanan - the other sections do not require Tevilah.
2. ... the inside became Tamei - then the entire vessel is Tamei.
(b) ) We explained in our Mishnah that 'Beis ha'Tzevitah' means the handle (like Rav Yehudah Amar Shmuel explains). Rebbi Asi Amar Rebbi Yochanan however - interprets 'Beis ha'Tzevitah' to mean - the grooves in the vessel in which finicky people tend to place their condiments.
(a) According to a Beraisa quoted by Rav Bibi in front of Rav Nachman, there is no difference between one part of the vessel and another, neither as regards Kodshei Hamikdash nor as regards Kodshei ha'Gevul - which normally means 'Terumah' and the like.
(b) This cannot be the case here however, seeing as our Mishnah explicitly does differentiate between the parts of the vessel with regard to Terumah. Rav Nachman therefore interprets Kodshei ha'Gevul - to pertain to Chulin she'Na'asu al Taharas ha'Kodesh' ...
(c) ... conforming with a statement made by his Rebbe Rabah bar Avuhah, who said that the first six cases in our Mishnah (of which this is one) applies both to Kodesh and to Chulin she'Na'asu al Taharas ha'Kodesh; whereas the last five are confined to Kodesh only.