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)