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)