The Eddie B. Sitt Edition, an audio series of the Talmud Bavli, Masechet Chagigah, has been dedicated in memory of Chacham Refuel Mohedeb ben Garaz and Marie Mohedeb bat Jamila. May their souls find rest in the Garden of Eden, Amen. This series is dedicated by Dr. Isaac and Lily Mohedeb, may Hashem protect and sustain them, Amen. Today’s daf is being studied for the elevation of the soul of Avraham ben Esther and Ezra ben Tune Mazal. May their souls find rest in the Garden of Eden, and may their souls be bound in the bond of life, Amen. Today’s daf is also being studied for a complete recovery for Yosef ben Rachel. May the Almighty heal him, and may we soon say Amen.
We begin today’s daf on Chaf Dalet Amud Rishon, about one-third of the way down the page, where it states, "Ha-revi'i bakodesh pasul." We learned in the Mishnah that one of the stringencies that kodesh has over terumah is that kodesh can reach the fourth degree of tumah, while terumah only reaches the third degree. The Gemara asks, “Tanya, Rabbi Yose said, how do we know that the fourth degree in kodesh is pasul?” What is the Torah source indicating that kodesh would be similar to things of korbanot, which can reach the fourth level? The Gemara responds that it is actually a kal vachomer.
It states, “U'mah mechusar kippurim,” referring to someone who is a zav. We noted that he must achieve taharah over seven days, and on the seventh day, he goes to the mikveh, but he is still considered mechusar kippurim until he brings his korban on the eighth day. Between his immersion on the seventh and his korban on the eighth, he is termed mechusar kippurim, lacking atonement. The text states, “U'mah mechusar kippurim shemutar b'terumah,” indicating that even at that stage, he is allowed to eat terumah, but he cannot partake of kodesh.
It follows that if a third-degree tumah, which invalidates terumah, is indeed pasul, then all the more so it should render kodesh a fourth degree of tumah. The logic is clear: a third degree is more stringent than a mechusar kippurim, which does not affect terumah but does affect kodesh. The Gemara concludes, “Ve'lamadnu shelishi lakodesh min haTorah u'revi'i b'kal vachomer.” We learned that kodesh reaches a third degree from the Torah, and the kal vachomer teaches us about the fourth degree.
Next, the Gemara explains that we have a rule that states, “Dayo lavo min hadin lihyot kenidon.” This principle indicates that when making a kal vachomer, one can only derive a law from a less stringent case to a more stringent case to an extent that is at least equal. The rule of dayo limits one’s conclusions from a kal vachomer. If a kal vachomer would be refuted, one does not apply the dayo rule.
The Gemara elaborates on this point, explaining that if the kal vachomer is nullified, the dayo rule would render it ineffective. The Gemara presents two stages: the third degree from the Torah and the fourth degree through kal vachomer. The reasoning for this is that if the third degree were not from the Torah, then the kal vachomer would only establish the third degree. However, since we already know that kodesh can reach a third degree, the kal vachomer is only needed to teach about the fourth degree.
The Gemara then cites Rashi, who clarifies that if the kal vachomer is refuted, then the dayo rule does not apply. The discussion continues with the Gemara presenting a key distinction: “Eino din sheya'aseh revi'i lakodesh.” If a third degree is pasul for terumah, then certainly it should also invalidate kodesh at the fourth degree.
As the Gemara continues, it addresses the question of whether the fourth degree of kodesh is a Torah law or a rabbinic decree. Rabbi Yochanan states that if a hand is a second degree and touches a third degree, it will make the kodesh a fourth degree. However, Rish Lakish counters that the second degree does not affect the third degree. The Gemara concludes that Rabbi Yochanan and Rish Lakish are debating the status of kodesh, whether it can be affected by a second degree or not.
Moving forward, the discussion shifts to the laws of terumah and kodesh regarding the purity of hands. The Mishnah states that if a person's hands become tamei, the other hand remains tahor. However, by kodesh, if one hand becomes tamei, both hands are considered tamei. The Gemara explores the implications of this distinction, particularly in cases where a tamei hand touches a tahor hand while it is in contact with kodesh.
Rav Shizbi elucidates that the stringency only applies when the tamei hand is touching the tahor hand while it is also touching kodesh. If the hands are not touching, there is no concern. Tosafot challenges Rashi's interpretation, suggesting that the stringency is about the potential for the tamei hand to touch the kodesh, rather than the mere transfer of tumah between hands.
As the discussion unfolds, the Gemara presents various cases illustrating how tumah can transfer from hand to hand, even when dry. This leads to a further exploration of the implications of tumah in practical scenarios involving kodesh and terumah. The Gemara concludes with a discussion on the need for careful observance of these laws, particularly in light of the potential for tumah transfer when handling food, especially kodesh.
Finally, the Gemara addresses the cases of an onen and a mechusar kippurim, emphasizing that even if they have not become tamei, they must observe additional precautions before consuming kodesh. The reasoning is that since they were previously prohibited from eating kodesh, there is concern that they may not have maintained the same level of vigilance regarding their purity. Thus, the need for immersion in the mikveh is reiterated as a safeguard against any lapse in awareness regarding kodesh.