ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler of Kollel Iyun Hadaf
Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld
(a) The Mishnah now lists the Chumros of Kodesh over T'rumah. One is permitted, when Toveling a number of vessels for T'rumah - to place them one inside the other during Tevilah, although this is forbidden when Toveling for Kodesh ...
(b) It is permitted on condition - that both vessels are Tamei (SeeTos. Yom-Tov).
(c) The reason for the Chumra by Kodshim is - because it looks like a Chatzitzah.
(a) When the Tana states 'Achorayim ve'Toch ... ba'Terumah Aval Lo ba'Kodesh', he means - that the back of a vessel (which has an independent use) and its inside are considered two separate vessels, inasmuch as if one becomes Tamei, the other remains Tahor.
(b) The former Din pertains to - Tum'ah de'Rabbanan exclusively.
(a) The same applies to 'Beis ha'Tzevitah' - (the handle).
(b) The source for this name in the Pasuk in Megilas Rus - "Vayitzbat lah Kali ... " (And he [Bo'az] handed her parched ears of corn).
(c) Another text reads 'u'Beis ha'Tzevi'ah', which is called by that name - based on the root of the word 'Etzba' (finger).
(d) The Mishnah rules - that like 'Achorayim ve'Toch', it is considered an independent vessel with regard to Tum'ah de'Rabbanan.
(a) 'Someone who carries Medras (a'Zav) - (e.g. a shoe) may carry T'rumah, but not Kodesh'.
(b) It is possible to do this without the T'rumah becoming Tamei - if the T'rumah is lying in an earthenware barrel (as long as one does not make contact with its inside).
(c) The Tana forbids it by Kodesh - due to an incident where someone who was carrying an open barrel containing Nesachim, when his shoe-lace (which was Medras ha'Zav) snapped, and when he took it off, it inadvertently fell into the barrel.
(d) They restricted the decree to Kodesh - because the incident occurred in connection with Kodesh.
(a) The Mishnah repeats that - 'Bigdei Ochlei T'rumah' Midras la'Kodesh (although we already learned it in the previous Perek),
(b) When Toveling a knotted garment for Kodesh - one is obligated to untie it before one Tovels it (although this is not necessary when Toveling a garment for T'rumah).
(c) The Tana adds 'u'Menagev', which means - that if the garment is wet, one also needs to let it dry before Toveling it.
(d) It is necessary to untie it first - because Toveling something with a knot looks like a Chatzitzah (See Tos. Yom-Tov DH 'ke'Midas ha'Kodesh').
(e) If one Tovels the garment for T'rumah - one is even permitted to tie it together (See Tos. Yom-Tov) before Toveling it.
(a) The Mishnah now discusses vessels that have just been completed be'Taharah - in that the Chaver who completed them took care as they reached completion to prevent them from having contact with any Tum'ah.
(b) The Tana now requires Tevilah (See Tos. Yom-Tov) for Kodesh but not for T'rumah.
(c) Even though the Chaver was careful once the Kodesh vessel neared completion, we are afraid that the spittle of an Am ha'Aretz may have touched it earlier ...
(d) ... and the vessel is still wet when it is completed.
(a) When the Tana says 'ha'K'li Metzaref Mah she'be'Tocho la'Kodesh', he means - that if a vessel contains a number of items of food, if one of them becomes Tamei, then they all become Tamei.
(b) The case is - where a T'vul-Yom, who renders Tamei T'rumah, touched the item.
(c) He learns this from the Pasuk in Naso (in connection with the Korbanos brought by the Nesi'im) "Kaf Achas Asarah Zahav ... "- which implies that the spoon combined whatever was on it as if they were all one piece (See Tos. Yom-Tov).
(d) With regard to pieces of T'rumah however - the one that the T'vul-Yom touched is Tamei, and the rest remain Tahor.
(a) The Tana gives the maximum level of Tum'ah regarding Kodesh - as a Revi'i, and of T'rumah - as a Shelishi.
(b) We can extrapolate from the phrase 'ha'Revi'i ba'Kodesh Pasul' - that it does not render other Kodesh Pasul.
(a) The Mishnah that if one hand that became Tamei regarding ...
1. ... T'rumah - the other hand remains Tahor.
2. ... Kodesh - the other hand is Tamei too.
(b) The entire body does not become Tamei - because the Tana is referring specifically to things such as Tamei food and beverages, which only render the hands Tamei, but not the person.
(c) If, in the case of Kodesh the hand that became Tamei is wet - then the other hand needs Tevilah automatically (See Tos. Yom-Tov), whereas if it is dry - only if Tamei hand actually touches it.
(d) The Tana sees fit to add 'because one hand is Metamei another by Kodesh ... ', the Tos. Yom-Tov) explains - to teach us that the other hand becomes Tamei even if it touches a hand that belongs to somebody else.
(a) When the Mishnah says that one may eat dry food with Tamei hands by T'rumah, it means - that if a Kohen who already has T'rumah in his mouth, he is allowed to place Chulin in his mouth as long as his hands are dry.
(b) The T'rumah got into his mouth in the first place - either by somebody else placing it there, or by himself placing it there via a pointed spindle or a shutle with which he pierced it.
(c) His hands must be dry - because otherwise he will render the Chulin a Sheni, which in turn, will render the T'rumah in his mouth a Shelishi.
(a) The Tana forbids the same thing by Kodesh - in case he touches the piece of Kodesh in his mouth with his Tamei hands (See also Tos. Yom-Tov).
(b) He did not issue the same decree by T'rumah - because, more lenient by T'rumah than by Kodshim, they relied on him being careful not to touch.
(a) An Onein (See Tiferes Yisrael) and a Mechusar Kipurim - (who Toveled before nightfall, and who is obligated to bring a Korban the following day) require Tevilah for Kodesh but not for T'rumah.
(b) The Mishnah is speaking on condition - that neither of them actually became Tamei Meis.
(c) The Mechusar Kipurim needs to Tovel - after he has brought his Korban, assuming he now wishes to partake of it.
(d) Despite the fact he is no longer Tamei, the Chachamim decreed Tevilah if he wants to eat Kodesh - because until now, he was forbidden to do so (See Tos. Yom-Tov).
(e) Moreover, the Chachamim decreed - that a Mechusar Kipurim renders Pasul Kodesh that he touches, whereas an Onein does not (See Tos. Yom-Tov).
(a) The Mishnah now discusses the Chumrah of T'rumah over Kodesh. When the Tana says in connection with Kodesh, that one is believed in Yehudah with regard to the Taharah of wine and oil all the year round, he is referring to - an Am ha'Aretz.
(b) The Am ha'Aretz prepared the wine and the oil for - the Nesachim and the Menachos, respectively ...
(c) ... and he now claims - that he did so be'Taharah.
(a) The Mishnah specifically mentions in Yehudah, and not in the rest of Eretz Yisrael - because there was a strip of land that divided between the Galil (the north of Eretz Yisrael) and Yehudah and Yerushalayim that belonged to Nochrim, and the Chachamim decreed Tum'ah on Eretz ha'Amim.
(b) Consequently - even Chaverim would have been unable to transport wine or oil for the Nesachim from thereto yerushalayim without be'Taharah (See Tos. Yom-Tov).
(c) The Am ha'Aretz is not believed all the year round regarding T'rumah - because the Amei-ha'Aretz were not so strict with regard to T'rumah, in which case he may well be lying when he claims that it is Tahor.
(a) The Am ha'Aretz is believed even regarding T'rumah - during the wine and oil harvest season (which the Tana refers to as Sha'as ha'Gitos [for wine] ve'ha'Badim [for oil]).
(b) The Chachamim were more lenient then - since everybody purifies his vessels in order separate T'rumah be'Taharah.
(c) If the Am ha'Aretz gives a Kohen a barrel of wine as T'rumah after the 'Gitos' and 'Badim' - the Kohen may not accept it ...
(d) ... in which the owner is advised to leave it in the winepress and to present it to the Kohen when the next Sha'as ha'Gitos arrives.
(a) he Am ha'Aretz is believed if he says that he added Kodesh wine into the barrel (See Meleches Sh'lomoh) - because 'Since [Migu] he is believed on the Kodesh he is also believed on the T'rumah' (See Tos. Yom-Tov).
(b) In order to be believed, he needs to add - a Revi'is (of a log) of Kodesh wine.
(a) 'Kadei Yayin ve'Kadei Shemen ha'Meduma'os' are - a mixture of barrels containing Chulin, T'rumah and Kodesh wine that is still Tevel, belonging to an Am ha'Aretz who is preparing his wine for Nesachim.
(b) We would have thought that the Am ha'Aretz is not believed on the barrels - since he is not believed on barrels of T'rumah even during the period of 'Gitos and Badim' (See Tos. Yom-Tov).
(c) Nevertheless, the Chachamim believe the Am ha'Aretz with regard to ...
1. ... the barrels that contain Kodesh - since ([Migu] he is believed on the Kodesh, and for the same reason he is also believed on ...
2. ... the T'rumah (as we just learned).
(d) The reason for this concession is - because it would be a disgrace for Kodesh if the barrels from which it has been poured to be declared Tamei, whilst the Kodesh itself is brought on the Mizbe'ach.
(a) In fact, he is believed - seventy days prior to the 'Gitos and Badim' ...
(b) ... because that is when one generally begins to prepare and to purify one's vessels.
(a) The Mishnah believes a potter who is selling - small earthenware vessels, (such as cups, pots and water-jugs) from Modi'is (Modi'in) and inwards (See Tos. Yom-Tov DH 've'Lifenim' & DH 'min ha'Modi'is ve'la'Chutz'), who claims that they are Tahor.
(b) Modi'is is - fifteen Mil from Yerushalayim.
(c) The connection between this Mishnah and the previous ones is - that like them, the concession pertains to Kodesh but not to T'rumah.
(a) The current Takanah was necessary - because the vessels in question were needed in Yerushalayim for Kodesh, and they were otherwise unobtainable there.
(b) And it is based on the principle - that 'One does not issue a decree on the community that they cannot keep'.
(c) They could not manufacture earthenware vessels in Yerushalayim itself - due to the prohibition of making kilns there (neither for the production of lime nor for that of pottery ...
(d) ... because the smoke is harmful to the Korbanos.
(a) If the potter ...
1. ... came from outside Modi'is - he is nevertheless believed.
2. ... who was selling his pots inside of Modi'is then moves outside and proceeds to sell from there - he is no longer believed.
(b) When the Tana says with regard to believing the potter who is selling within Modi'is ...
1. ... 'Hu ha'Kadar', he means - that it is only the potter who came from outside Modi'is himself who is believed, but not any other potter to whom he may handed his pots.
2. ... 'Hein ha'Kedeiros', he means - that it is only the pots that he brought with him from outside Modi'is that he is believed, but not on pots that another potter may have given him to sell.
3. ... 'Hein ha'Lokchin', he means - that it is only the Chaverim who actually saw him bring the pots from outside Modi'is who are permitted to purchase them, but not anybody else.
(a) The Gaba'in - (Yisrael tax-collectors appointed by the king to claim various taxes) who claim that they did not touch anything when they the house (to claim a security) are believed (regarding Kodesh [See Tos. Yom-Tov]).
(b) The Tana issues the same ruling with regard to Ganavim who returned the earthenware vessels that they stole - and who claim, when they come to return them, that they did not open the barrel, who are believed regarding Kodesh (See Tos. Yom-Tov) ...
(c) ... provided they are returning them because of Teshuvah that was not based on fear.
(a) The Mishnah believe everyone in Yerushalayim who claims that his earthenware vessels are Tahor with regards to Kodesh - for the same reason as the potters are believed in the previous Mishnah ...
(b) ... only this concession extends - even to large vessels as well (.
(c) It extends even to T'rumah - during Yom-Tov.
(d) We learn this from the Pasuk in Seifer Shoftim "Vaye'esof Kol Ish Yisrael el ha'Ir ke'Ish Echad 'Chaverim', which has connotations of - Talmidei-Chachamim who are careful regarding Tum'ah.
(e) The Pasuk is now coming to teach us - that on a day when all of Yisrael gather to the city (i.e. to the Yerushalayim on Yom-Tov), they are all considered Chaverim (See Tos. Yom-Tov).
(a) The Mishnah now discusses a case of ...
1. ... 'ha'Pose'ach es Chavito' - which means where a Chaver opened a barrel of wine and of ...
2. ... 'ha'Maschil be'Isaso ba'Regel' - which means that likewise, he prepared a dough, both during Yom-Tov, both of which were touched by Amei-ha'Aretz but nevertheless remained Tahor.
(b) Rebbi Yehudah says 'Yigmor', which means - that the Chaver may continue to sell the remainder of wine from the barrel or of the dough that remains after Yom-Tov.
(c) The Chachamim disagree - because it is only on Yom-Tov itself that the Chachamim consider everybody Chaverim, but once Yom-Tov has passed, whatever an Am-ha'Aretz touched on Yom-Tov becomes Tamei retroactively.
(d) Whereas Rebbi Yehudah's maintains - that if the Chaver is not permitted to sell what is left after Yom-Tov be'Chezkas Taharah, he will not open the barrel of wine or prepare a dough for Yom-Tov, causing a shortage of food on Yom-Tov.
(e) The Halachah is like the Chachamim.
(a) The day after Yom-Tov, the Kohanim used to - Tovel the Keilim of the Azarah.
(b) They did not do this on Friday if Yom-Tov terminated on Thursday - to enable them to prepare for Shabbos.
(c) According to Rebbi Yehudah, they did not do it either if it terminated on Wednesday, since they were not available to do it on Thursday either - since they were exceptionally busy on Thursday, removing the pile of ashes from the Tapu'ach in the middle of the Mizbe'ach that had accumulated over Yom-Tov.
(a) Having just learned that the Kohanim would Tovel the Keilim of the Azarah (and apparently of the Heichal, too), they nevertheless needed to warn the Amei-ha'Aretz (i.e. Kohanim [See Tos. Yom-Tov]) on Yom-Tov not to touch the Shulchan (See Tos. Yom-Tov) - because the Shulchan was the one K'li (See Tos. Yom-Tov) that they were not permitted to move from its place (even in order to Tovel it) ...
(b) Since the Pasuk in Tetzaveh states - "Lechem Panim Lefanai Tamid".
(c) They had two replicas of 'each' K'li ...
(d) ... in case the initial K'li became Tamei.
(a) When the Tana rules that each and every K'li required Tevilah with two exceptions, he is talking about - the day after Yom-Tov.
(b) The two exceptions are - the Mizbe'ach ha'Zahav and the Mizbe'ach ha'Nechoshes.
(c) The third exception - is the Shulchan, as we just learned.
(a) According to Rebbi Eliezer, the reason that the Mizbe'ach ha'Nechoshes does not require Tevilah is because it is considered attached to the ground (See Tos. Yom-Tov). He learns it from the Pasuk in Yisro - "Mizbach Adamah Ta'aseh Li" ...
(b) And the Mizbe'ach ha'Zahav does not require Tevilah - since it is compared to the Mizbe'ach ha'Nechoshes ...
(c) ... which we learn from the Pasuk in Bamidbar "ha'Menorah ve'ha'Mizb'chos".
(a) The Chachamim say 'Mipnei she'hein Metzupin' (i.e. the two Mizb'chos were overlaid) - one with gold, the other, with copper.
(b) According to one explanation that is why they required Tevilah. Otherwise, they would have been Patur - since they were wooden vessels that were made to remain in one spot (See Tos. Yom-Tov).
(c) Others explain that they actually agree in principle with Rebbi Eliezer's ruling, and that, when they said 'Mipnei she'hein Metzupin' - they meant that they did not require Tevilah because their Tzipuy (what they were overlaid with) was Bateil to the wood (See Tos. Yom-Tov).
(d) And the Machlokes between Rebbi Eliezer and the Chachamim is - confined to the reason behind the ruling, but not to the ruling itself.
(e) The source of this explanation is - the Rambam.
Nishlemah Maseches Chagigah