Previous daf

1)

(a) We attempt to learn from the Mishnah in Mikva'os 'Gal she'Nislash, u'Vo Arba'in Sa'ah, ve'Nafal al ha'Adam ve'al ha'Keilim, Tehorin' - that Tevilas Adam le'Chulin does not require Kavanah.

(b) We believe that Tevilas Adam is speaking about a case when the person did not have Kavanah - because 'Adam Dumyah le'Keilim', and by a regular case of a wave falling on vessels, the owner did not have Kavanah.

(c) But then we suggest that maybe 'Keilim Dumya de'Adam' - meaning that maybe Keilim speaks when the owner was waiting for the wave to fall on his vessels and Tovel them, just like Adam, which probably speaks when the person had Kavanah to Tovel. Needless to say, if it speaks when the owner had Kavanah, our proof that Tevilas Adam does not require Kavanah falls away.

(a) If the above Beraisa was speaking in a case of 'Yoshev u'Metzapeh', the Beraisa would be teaching us one of two Chidushim. The first, that we do not decree Toveling at the foot of a wave because a person might come to Tovel in a Chardelis - meaning a large collection of water, consisting of more than forty Sa'ah, flowing down the slopes of a mountain. This is not a good Tevilah -because one may only Tovel in rain-water when it is gathered in one place and not moving.

(b) The second possible Chidush is - that we do not decree because he may come to Tovel the vessels in the arch of the wave (the part that is off the ground).

(c) We know that one cannot Tovel in the arch of a wave whose end is on the ground - from a Beraisa, which writes this explicitly.

(d) The Tana gives the reason for the prohibition - because one is not permitted to Tovel in the air.

(a) The Mishnah in Machshirin says that if someone places his Tamei hands into a pool of water to withdraw some fruit that fell into it, the fruit is *not* Muchshar le'Kabeil Tum'ah - because he is not interested in the water (which is therefore not 'be'Chi Yutan'); whereas if he meant to Tovel his hands, it *is* - because since he wants the water, the fruit falls into the category of 'be'Chi Yutan'.

(b) Either way, says the Beraisa, his hands are Tahor - proving that Netilas Yadayim does not require Kavanah.

(c) In that case, when the Tana of the Beraisa says ...

1. ... 'ha'Tovel le'Chulin, *ve'Huchzak le'Chulin*, Asur le'Ma'aser' (implying that Chulin too, requires Kavanah) - he means that *even* if he had Kavanah for Chulin, he is forbidden to eat Ma'aser (but not that Chulin requires Kavanah).
2. ... 'Taval ve'Lo Huchzak, Ke'ilu Lo Taval' - he means 'Ke'ilu Lo Taval le'Ma'aser'.

(d) This latter explanation is not considered a Dochek - because it is corroborated in a Beraisa, which states 'Taval ve'Lo Huchzak, Asur le'Ma'aser u'Mutar le'Chulin'.

(a) Rebbi Elazar rules that one may Tovel first and then decide for which level of Kedushah the Tevilah should be effective.

(b) The Beraisa which says that only as long as one's feet are still in the water may he make such a decision - speaks when he already had in mind a lighter Kedushah, in which case, he may only change to cover a more stringent Kedushah as long as his feet are still in the water, whereas Rebbi Elazar speaks when he Toveled S'tam (without any Kavanah at all).

(a) Rav Pedas maintains that the author of this Beraisa must be Rebbi Yehudah - who says that if two people went to Tovel in a Mikveh that contained exactly forty Sa'ah of water, then, as long as the feet of the first person are still in the water, the second one is Tahor, too; but not if the first one had already left the water when the second one Toveled, since the Mikveh is now short of forty Sa'ah.

(b) Some say that Rav Nachman Amar Rabah bar Avuhah established Rebbi Yehudah when the two men were Tamei with a Tum'ah de'Rabbanan (such as those in our Mishnah), and it is there that the Rabbanan disagree with him. If the two men were Tamei d'Oraysa - then even Rebbi Yehudah will agree that the second one remains Tamei in any case.

(c) The second Lashon in Rav Nachman Amar Rabah bar Avuhah maintains - that by a Tum'ah de'Rabbanan, even the Rabbanan agree with Rebbi Yehudah that the second person becomes Tahor if the first one's feet were still in the water, and they argue by a Tum'ah d'Oraysa.

(d) It is the first Lashon in Rav Nachman Amar Rabah bar Avuhah which conforms with Rav P'das (who establishes the Beraisa like Rebbi Yehudah, and not the Rabbanan) - according to the second Lashon, the author of the Beraisa could equally well be the Rabbanan.

(a) The underlying principle of Rebbi Yehudah, who holds that as long as the feet of the first person to Tovel are still in the water, the second person may Tovel there - is 'Gud Acheis' (extending the water downwards, as if it was in the Mikveh).

(b) They asked Rebbi Yochanan a She'eilah whether, according to Rebbi Yehudah, one may Tovel pins and needles on the head of the first man whose feet are still in the water - which would be based on the principle 'Gud Aseik' (extending the Mikveh upwards as if it was joined to the water [and to the pins and needles] on the man's head).

(c) The Beraisa speaks about a case of three pools of water one above the other in a sloping valley.

1. The top pool and the lower pool each contain twenty Sa'ah, and the middle one, forty Sa'ah.
2. The three pools are joined by a Chardelis that was flowing from one to the other.

(d) Rebbi Yochanan tried to resolve our She'eilah with this Beraisa, where Rebbi Yehudah quotes Rebbi Meir as saying 'Matbil be'Elyanoh' (because of 'Gud Aseik'). They repudiated his proof however, on the basis of the continuation of the Beraisa (of which Rebbi Yochanan had not been aware) 'va'Ani Omer, be'Tachtonah ve'Lo be'Elyanoh'. Rebbi Yochanan replied I Tanya, Tanya.

7)

(a) The Reisha of our Mishnah cites *five* levels of Kedushah, listing Chulin and Ma'aser as two of the levels. The Seifa, lists only *four* levels (combining Chulin and Ma'aser into one level). In order to reconcile the two - we establish the Reisha like the Rabbanan (cited above on 18b), who distinguish between Chulin and Ma'aser, and the Seifa like Rebbi Meir, who treats Ma'aser like Chulin in this regard.

(b) Rav Acha bar Ada amends the Mishnah so that the Reisha and the Seifa are both learned by the Rabbanan - by amending the Seifa to contain *five* levels, like the Reisha (adding 'Bigdei Ochlei Chulin Medras le'Ochlei Ma'aser' to the beginning of the Beraisa).

(a) We try to prove from the fact that the Tana of our Mishnah does not include in its list, 'Bigdei P'rushin ha'Ochlin Chuleihen be'Taharas Chulin, Medras le'Ochlei Chuleihen be'Taharas ha'Kodesh' - that 'Chulin she'Na'asu al Taharas ha'Kodesh, ke'Kodesh Damu' (because they are included in Kodesh).

(b) We refute it on the grounds that - even they were like Chulin (like the opinion of the Tana Kama) or like Terumah (like that of Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Tzadok - who argue in a Beraisa), it would not be necessary to mention them, because both Terumah and Chulin are already included in the list.

(c) We ultimately prove it from the Seifa of our Mishnah 'Rebbi Yochanan ben Gudgoda Hayah Ochel al Taharas ha'Kodesh Kol Yamav, ve'Haysa Mitpachto Medra s le'Chatas' - from which we infer 'le'Chatas In, le'Kodesh, Lo'. This can only be due to the fact that 'Chulin she'Na'asu al Taharas ha'Kodesh, ke'Kodesh Damu' (in which case, Bigdei Chulin she'Na'asu al Taharas ha'Kodesh are not Medras le'Ochlei Kodesh).