Ask A Question about the Daf

Previous daf

Beitzah 18

1) IMMERSING "KELIM" IN A MIKVAH AND "METAKEN KLI"

QUESTIONS: The Mishnah (17b) states that according to both Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel, it is prohibited to immerse Kelim in a Mikvah on Yom Tov. The Gemara records four different reasons for the prohibition: (1) one might carry the Kelim four Amos in Reshus ha'Rabim on Shabbos (Rabah), (2) one might squeeze the water (Sechitah) out of clothing that required immersion (Rav Yosef), (3) one might delay (Shema Yeshaheh) immersing his Kelim until Yom Tov and then forget and use them for Terumah (Rav Bivi), and (4) it appears that he is fixing a Kli (Nir'eh k'Metaken Kli) when he immerses it (Rava).

The Gemara, while discussing Rabah's reason, cites a number of Beraisos as questions on Rabah's reason, and it answers those questions. One Beraisa says that it is permitted to draw water from a well with a bucket that is Tamei on Yom Tov, even though the bucket will become Tahor as a result. Another Beraisa permits immersing a Kli that is Tamei from a Vlad ha'Tum'ah on Yom Tov.

RASHI explains, in both cases, why the Tevilah is permitted: since the reason for the prohibition of Tevilah on Yom Tov is because it looks like one is fixing the Kli, the prohibition does not apply in these cases because it does not look like an act of fixing a Kli. In the case of drawing water with the bucket that is Tamei (RASHI DH b'Deli Tamei), one is doing an act of drawing water, not of immersing a Kli (and even though the Kli becomes Tahor as a result, it does not look like one is fixing the Kli). Also, when one immerses a Kli that is Tamei with Vlad ha'Tum'ah (RASHI DH b'Vlad ha'Tum'ah), it does not look like one is fixing the Kli, because the Tum'ah is only mid'Rabanan.

Similarly, the Gemara cites a Beraisa that states that a woman may immerse herself in a Mikvah on Yom Tov while she is wearing her clothes, even though the clothes will become Tahor as a result. RASHI there as well (DH Ma'aremes) explains that the reason it is permitted is because it does not look like an act of fixing a Kli, since she is immersing her entire body.

The first problem with Rashi is obvious. The Gemara at this point is explaining Rabah's reason, who says that the prohibition of Tevilah on Yom Tov is because one might carry in Reshus ha'Rabim. Why, then, is Rashi giving the reason brought later in the Gemara (in the name of Rava), that Tevilah is Asur on Yom Tov because of "Nir'eh k'Metaken Kli," that it looks like one is fixing a Kli? (TOSFOS YESHANIM cited by MAHARSHA, and RASHBA)

Second, if the reason for the prohibition is because one might carry in Reshus ha'Rabim, then why does the Beraisa permit drawing water with a bucket that is Tamei, or to immerse a Kli that is Tamei with Vlad ha'Tum'ah, or for a Nidah to immerse while wearing clothes? The fear that one might carry in Reshus ha'Rabim -- as well as the other two concerns (of Sechitah, and of Shema Yeshaheh) -- should also apply in these cases! However, when the Gemara asks that these cases should be Asur, it does not ask because one might carry the items in Reshus ha'Rabim, but rather that they should be Asur for different reasons (in the case of the bucket, that one might immerse the bucket by itself without drawing water; in the case of the Vlad ha'Tum'ah, that one might permit immersing a Kli that is Tamei with Av ha'Tum'ah; in the case of the Nidah, that she might immerse the clothing by itself while she is not wearing it). Why does the Gemara not ask on those cases that they should be Asur because one might carry the items in Reshus ha'Rabim (or, according to Rav Yosef, that one might squeeze water out of the items, or according to Rav Bivi, that one might delay immersing them until Yom Tov)? (MAHARSHA, PNEI YEHOSHUA)

Similarly, why does our Mishnah permit doing Hashakah of water, or to be Tovel m'Gav l'Gav (to do a Tevilah of extra cautiousness)? True, the reason of Metaken Kli does not apply in those cases (since Hashakah is not "fixing" the water, but "planting" it, and since mi'Gav l'Gav is not required but is only an extra measure of cautiousness). However the reasons given by Rabah, Rav Yosef, and Rav Bivi should prohibit the Tevilah even in those cases! (TOSFOS, DH NIGZAR)

ANSWERS:

(a) TOSFOS does not mention the problem of Metaken Kli with regard to these cases at this stage in the Gemara. Furthermore, he establishes a logical reason why the other Gezeiros do not apply to these cases.

Tosfos addresses the question of why it is permitted to do Hashakah with water, and we are not concerned that one will carry the water in Reshus ha'Rabim (according to Rabah). Tosfos writes that since a person has other water to drink and doing Hashakah with the Tamei water is not so pressing, he is not so pressured and therefore he will not forget and carry the water in Reshus ha'Rabim. (The other reasons -- Sechitah and Shema Yeshaheh -- also do not apply: obviously there is no problem of Sechitah since Hashakah can only be done with water and not with a Kli, and Shema Yeshaheh does not apply, because it only applies to pots and Kelim, which may accidentally be used with Terumah before Tevilah and bring about a Takalah).

The same approach can be said regarding the case of Tevilah m'Gav l'Gav; since one is not so pressured to do the Tevilah (because the Kelim are really Tahor already) there is no fear that he will forget and carry the Kelim in Reshus ha'Rabim. (Shema Yeshaheh does not apply to those pots, since there will be no Takalah even if he uses them for Terumah, because they are Tahor anyway. Likewise, the Gezeirah of Sechitah does not apply to Kelim which one is Tovel m'Gav l'Gav, because if one does not *have* to be Tovel them, he will not be Tovel them if he will need to squeeze them out afterwards. In contrast, when it comes to Kelim that need Tevilah because they are Tamei and are needed for Terumah, one will be so concerned that he have Kelim available for use that he will be Tovel them and inadvertently squeeze them out.)

Regarding the cases of being Tovel a bucket which is Tamei while drawing water with it, and a Nidah who immerses with her clothing, it is obvious why there is no concern that one will carry the item in Reshus ha'Rabim. The bucket is hanging next to the well (MAHARSHA), and one does not remove it from its place there. The woman is wearing the clothes with which she immerses, and thus there is no fear that she will carry them. (As far as why there is no Gezeirah to prohibit those cases due to a bucket that is not hanging next to the well, and due to clothes that the woman is not wearing, the Rabanan did not make such a Gezeirah because of the reasons that the Gemara gives.)

The MAHARSHA suggests that this is the opinion of Rashi as well. Why, then, does Rashi mention that the reason the Tevilah in these cases is permitted is because there is no concern of looking like one is fixing a Kli? The Maharsha answers that Rashi merely chose to give Rava's reason to explain these Beraisos, because that is the final reason given in the Gemara (we find earlier (17b, DH ha'Matbil) that Rashi chose that reason as the standard reason why Tevilas Kelim is prohibited on Yom Tov). Even though the Gemara at this stage does not know that reason, Rashi explains the reason of the Beraisos according to the conclusion of the Gemara, and it is understood that there will be no question as to why those cases are permitted according to the other opinions, for the reasons given by Tosfos.

(See also PNEI YEHOSHUA, who suggests that Abaye, who is discussing Rabah's reason when he asks from the Beraisos which permit Tevilah on Yom Tov, holds like Rava who says that the reason for the Isur is because of Nir'eh k'Metaken Kli, and therefore Rashi mentions that reason at this part of the Sugya, because that is how Abaye understands the Beraisos.)

(b) Perhaps the second question that we asked answers the first question. Rashi was bothered why it is permitted to do Hashakah, to do Tevilah m'Gav l'Gav, and to be Tovel a Kli that is Tamei with Vlad ha'Tum'ah, as well as how the other cases of Tevilah on Yom Tov are permitted. He did not accept Tosfos' explanation that the person is not pressured and therefore he will not accidentally carry the Kli in Reshus ha'Rabim. Rather, Rashi reasoned that the only way to explain the Gemara is to say that Rabah holds that the Gezeirah is made not just because of the fear that one might carry in Reshus ha'Rabim, but the Gezeirah is made when there is a *combination of two reasons* to prohibit the Tevilah. Thus, whenever there are both concerns -- the concern that one might carry in Reshus ha'Rabim, *and* the concern that it looks like one is fixing a Kli -- the Gezeirah applies. The same is true for the other opinions (Rav Yosef and Rav Bivi); only when both the problem that it looks like one is fixing a Kli *and* the problem of Sechitah or Shema Yeshaheh coexist did the Rabanan prohibit the Tevilah. Therefore, whenever the problem of Nir'eh k'Metaken Kli is absent (such as in the case of the bucket, the Kli with Vlad ha'Tum'ah, and the clothing of the Nidah), the Rabanan did not apply their Gezeirah, even where there remains one other concern (such as carrying the item in Reshus ha'Rabim).

We might ask, however, that if it is true that Rabah, Rav Yosef, and Rav Bivi agree that we are also concerned for the problem of Nir'eh k'Metaken Kli, then why did they have to say that the Gezeirah applies only when there is a second concern? Why did the reject Rava's suggestion that the Gezeirah applies even when there is the single concern of Nir'eh k'Metaken Kli?

The answer is that the Gemara found fault with Rava's reason of Nir'eh k'Metaken Kli. The Gemara asks according to Rava that if the concern is that it looks like one is fixing a Kli, then it should also be prohibited for man to immerse *himself* on Yom Tov, Shabbos, and Yom ha'Kipurim, yet the Mishnah permits it! The Gemara suggests an answer for Rava. The other opinions, though, did not accept the answer, and instead answered this question differently. Rabah, Rav Yosef, and Rav Bivi suggested that the Rabanan made their Gezeirah of Nir'eh k'Metaken Kli only when there is an *additional* reason to prohibit the Tevilah (such as the concern that he might carry the Kelim in Reshus ha'Rabim, or Sechitah, or Shema Yeshaheh). None of these additional reasons exist in the case of Tevilah of a man (the Rabanan were not concerned for Sechitah of a man's hair, see Shabbos 40b; Shema Yeshaheh does not apply to a man, because a person does not push off his Tevilah, but rather he immerses right away when he becomes Tamei in order to be able to eat Terumah, or to eat Chulin in a state of Taharah, as Tosfos explains in DH Gezeirah). Therefore, it is permitted for a person to be Tovel on Yom Tov. The other cases which are permitted, as mentioned above, are permitted because the other one of the two reasons for the Gezeirah are absent -- because there is no fear of Nir'eh k'Metaken Kli. (M. Kornfeld)

QUESTION: The Gemara says that on Yom Tov, one may immerse a Kli that is Tamei even with Av ha'Tum'ah, if it became Tamei on Yom Tov (RASHI). Why is it not prohibited because of the reason that it looks like one is fixing a Kli (Nir'eh k'Metaken), or for any of the other reasons mentioned in the Gemara (see beginning of previous Insight for a summary of the four reasons)? ANSWERS:

(a) The MAHARSHA explains that the Rabanan only made these Gezeiros prohibiting Tevilah on Yom Tov when there is another option. That is, if one could immerse the Kli before Yom Tov, then the Gezeirah is in force and prohibits immersing the Kli on Yom Tov. In this case, though, there was no option of immersing the Kli before Yom Tov, because it only became Tamei on Yom Tov. In such a case, the Rabanan did not apply the Gezeirah.

REBBI AKIVA EIGER asks a strong question on the Maharsha's explanation. If this is why the Chachamim did not enact these Gezeiros when the Kli became Tamei on Yom Tov, then why does the Gemara ask that it should be prohibited to be Tovel items that became Tamei on Yom Tov lest one be Tovel items that became Tamei from before Yom Tov? If we do not apply the *main* Gezeirah of "Shema Ya'avirenu..." when a Kli became Tamei on Yom Tov, since there is no other option, then we should certainly not prohibit the Tevilah of a Kli that became Tamei on Yom Tov due to a secondary Gezeirah, lest it be confused with Kelim that became Tamei before Yom Tov!

(b) The CHACHMAS MANO'ACH says we know that a Kli that one immerses on Yom Tov cannot be used for Terumah on the same day, because Terumah requires not only that the Kli be immersed, but that the entire day pass as well ("He'erev Shemesh"). For what purpose, then, is the person immersing the Kli on Yom Tov? It must be because he wants to use the Kli for non-Terumah items (Chulin), as Rashi says. There is no Isur of using a Tamei Kli for Chulin; it is only a Chumra of the Rabanan that one should eat Chulin while Tahor. Accordingly, since it is only a Chumra, immersing the Kli does not look like one is fixing the Kli (just like it does not look like one is fixing a Kli when he immerses a Kli that is Tamei with Vlad ha'Tum'ah, as Rashi explains).

18b