Ask A Question about the Daf

Previous daf

Chagigah, 20

1) "CHULIN SHE'NA'ASU AL TAHARAS HA'KODESH"

QUESTION: The Gemara questions whether Chulin she'Na'asu Al Taharas ha'Kodesh (food of Chulin which was treated and eaten with the sanctity of Kodesh items) is considered like Kodesh or not. The Gemara attempts to prove from the Mishnah (18b) that it is like Kodesh, because if it is not like Kodesh, then it should be mentioned in an independent category in the Mishnah which lists the different categories. The Gemara refutes this proof and says that even if Chulin she'Na'asu Al Taharas ha'Kodesh is not like Kodesh, it is considered either like normal Chulin or like Terumah, and since the Mishnah mentions those categories already, it does not need to mention a separate category for Chulin she'Na'asu Al Taharas ha'Kodesh since it is included in one of those.

RASHI explains that when the Gemara says that Chulin she'Na'asu Al Taharas ha'Kodesh should be listed by the Mishnah as an independent category if it is not considered to be like Kodesh, it is referring to the *end* of the Mishnah. The end of the Mishnah states that the clothing of Perushin (who eat Chulin b'Taharah) is Midras for those who eat Terumah, and the clothing of those who eat Terumah is Midras for those who eat Kodesh, and so on. Rashi says that if Chulin she'Na'asu Al Taharas ha'Kodesh is not like Kodesh, then the Mishnah should have said that the clothing of Perushin who eat Chulin b'Taharah ("Al Taharas Chulin") is Midras for Perushin who eat Chulin she'Na'asu Al Taharas ha'Kodesh.

Why does Rashi explain that the proof is from the second list of different levels in the Mishnah, and not from the first list, in the beginning of the Mishnah?

In the beginning of the Mishnah, the Mishnah presents a list of levels with regard to a different Halachah. If one immersed himself with intention to eat Chulin, then he is permitted to eat Chulin but prohibited from eating Ma'aser. If he immersed with intention to eat Ma'aser, then he is permitted to Ma'aser but may not eat Terumah, and so on. Rashi should have said that the Gemara's attempted proof is from there, from the beginning of the Mishnah. If Chulin she'Na'asu Al Taharas ha'Kodesh is like Kodesh, then the Mishnah should have listed it as a separate category and said that one who immersed for Chulin she'Na'asu Al Taharas Chulin is prohibited from eating Chulin she'Na'asu Al Taharas ha'Kodesh, and one who immersed for Chulin she'Na'asu Al Taharas ha'Kodesh is prohibited from eating Ma'aser, etc. Why does Rashi say that the Gemara's proof is from the list in the end of the Mishnah, and not from the list in the beginning of the Mishnah? (TUREI EVEN)

Moreover, that explanation is more consistent with the words of the Gemara when it refutes the proof. The Gemara says that if Chulin she'Na'asu Al Taharas ha'Kodesh is like normal Chulin, then the Mishnah already lists Chulin and it does not have to make a new category. If it is like Terumah, then the Mishnah already lists Terumah. In the list in the beginning of the Mishnah, the Mishnah indeed lists Chulin as a separate level. But in the list of levels in the end of the Mishnah, the Mishnah makes no mention of Chulin as one of the levels (it only alludes to it by mentioning that the clothing of "Perushin" is Midrash for those who eat Terumah)! The Gemara's refutation of the proof implies that the Gemara's proof was from the beginning of the Mishnah, and not from the end! (see MAHARSHA)

ANSWER: The Gemara earlier (19a) taught that when immersing in order to eat Chulin (b'Taharah), one does not need Kavanah. The Gemara questioned that assumption from the beginning of the Mishnah which says that "one who immersed for Chulin is permitted to eat Chulin," which implies that one must have Kavanah for Chulin. (The Gemara answers that question and concludes that Tevilah for Chulin does *not* need Kavanah).

Perhaps Chulin she'Na'asu Al Taharas ha'Kodesh is *not* like Kodesh, but it is also not entirely like normal Chulin, in that it *does* require Kavanah when immersing.

Accordingly, no proof can be adduced from the beginning of the Mishnah by asserting that it should have inserted an additional category into its list of levels, and said that if one immersed for Chulin she'Na'asu Al Taharas Chulin, he may not eat Chulin she'Na'asu Al Taharas ha'Kodesh. There would have been no reason for the Mishnah to split Chulin into two categories, because there is no need for the Mishnah to mention immersing with Kavanah for Chulin she'Na'asu Al Taharas *Chulin*, since that does not need Kavanah at all! When the Mishnah mention Chulin, it might well be that it *is* referring to *Chulin she'Na'asu Al Taharas ha'Kodesh*, and thus the Gemara cannot ask why the Mishnah does not mention that category, because it *does* mention that category!

In contrast, the list in the end of the Mishnah (which discusses the clothing of those who eat one level of food as being a Midras for those who eat a higher level) could have mentioned normal Chulin and Chulin she'Na'asu Al Taharas ha'Kodesh in the list, because the law of Midras between the levels applies to Chulin she'Na'asu Al Taharas Chulin as well, and thus the Mishnah would have added an extra category if Chulin she'Na'asu Al Taharas ha'Kodesh was indeed a separate category in and of itself. (M. Kornfeld)

QUESTION: The Gemara attempts to prove that a person does not have to know what he is guarding in order to guard an object from becoming Tamei. The object remains Tahor as long as he guards it from Tum'ah, even if he watches the object thinking that it is a different object (for example, he thought he was guarding one item, and it turned out to be a different item).

The Gemara proves this from an incident wherein a woman asked Rebbi Yishmael a question regarding the Taharah of a garment she wove. She said that although she was Tahor while she wove the garment, she did not have in mind to guard it from Tum'ah, but she was not aware of it coming into contact with any Tum'ah. Rebbi Yishmael interrogated her and discovered that while she was setting up the loom for the garment, another woman who was a Nidah (and Tamei) helped her, and it is possible that the Nidah moved the loom and was Metamei the garment.

Rebbi Yishmael exclaimed, "How great are the words of the Chachamim, who said that if one intended to guard an item, it is Tahor, and if one did not intent to guard it, it is Tamei!" The Gemara asserts that from this statement we see that it is enough to guard the object from Tum'ah, and it is not necessary to know exactly what one is guarding.

Where do we see this from that statement? In the case to which Rebbi Yishmael applied the statement, the woman knew what the object was, but she did not guard it at all! Perhaps Rebbi Yishmael meant that the object is Tahor if one guards it *and* knows exactly what one is guarding, but not if one guards it without knowing what he is guarding!

ANSWER: The MITZPEH EISAN answers that the proof is from the affirmation that Rebbi Yishmael found for the wisdom of the Chachamim from this incident. If the Halachah is that one must guard the object while having in mind that particular object, then the Halachah which Rebbi Yishmael quoted must be read, "If one intended to guard *this particular object* it is Tahor, and if one did not intend to guard *this particular object* it is Tamei (even though one did guard the object, thinking that it was a different item)." He was not saying merely that the object is Tamei if one did not guard it at all, but that it is Tamei even if one did guard it, but thought that it was a different object.

If so, though, how can Rebbi Yishmael affirm the greatness of the Chachamim from the incident of the woman whose garment was found to be Tamei? In that case, even if she had guarded it thinking that it was a different object, she still would not have let a Nidah get near it, and it would have been *Tahor*! The only reason it was found to be Tamei was because she did not guard it *at all*, and not because she guarded it without knowing exactly what she was guarding!

It must be that the Chachamim decreed that the Shemirah is not valid (and the object is Tamei) only when one did not have intention to guard it at all. But if one had intention to guard it from Tum'ah in any way (even if he did not know exactly what he was guarding), it suffices and the object remains Tahor.

20b