Siman - Chagigah Daf 19
- The source that washing one’s hands for chullin does not require kavanah to be metaher them
On the bottom of Daf 18b, Rav Nachman resolved conflicting Baraisas regarding whether one washing his hands must have kavanah to purify them. He explained that the second Baraisa, which states that they are tahor without kavanah, is referring to a person purifying his hands for chullin, which does not require kavanah, and the first Baraisa was referring to one purifying his hands for maaser sheni, which does require kavanah. After the Gemara rejects the first source that supports Rav Nachman’s distinction that chullin does not require kavanah, it brings a Mishnah that taught: פירות שנפלו לתוך אמת המים ופשט מי שידיו טמאות ונטלן – If produce fell into a water channel, and one whose hands were tamei reached into the water and took them, ידיו טהורות ופירות אינן ב"כי יתן" – His hands are tahor, even though he did not have kavanah to purify his hands, and the produce is not in the category of “if water was placed” to make it susceptible to being mekabel tumah. Water is only machshir food when the person wanted the food to become wet. ואם בשביל שיודחו ידיו ידיו טהורות והפירות הרי הן ב"כי יתן" – But if he reached into the water to rinse his hands, his hands are tahor, and the produce is susceptible to being mekabel tumah. Rashi explains that since he is putting his hands in the water to wash them, he does approve of the water on the fruit. We see from these two cases that purifying oneself for chullin does not require kavanah.
- עודהו רגלו אחת במים
The Gemara brought a Baraisa that taught: עודהו רגלו אחת במים – That if one still has one foot in the water of a mikvah, it is considered as if he is still immersing, and he may change his kavanah to an even higher kedushah. The Gemara asks who is the Tanna that taught this, and Rebbe Pedas said that it is Rebbe Yehudah, for we learned in a Mishnah in Mikvaos: If a mikveh was measured and it contained exactly forty se’ah, and two people immersed in it, one after the other, the first one is tahor and the second one is tamei. Rashi explains that since some of the water was on the body of the first person when he left, the second person is immersing in a mikveh with less than forty se’ah. Rebbe Yehudah said: אם היו רגליו של ראשון נוגעות במים אף השני טהור – If the feet of the first one were still touching the water when the second person immersed, the second one is also tahor. Rebbe Yehudah bases his rule on the concept of גוד אחית, which allows one to view an object as if it is extending downward. In this case, the water on the first person’s body would be extending down into the mikveh giving it the requisite forty se’ah. Rebbe Pedas assumes that Rebbe Yehudah would also hold of גוד אסיק – which allows us to view an object as extending and raising. Therefore, if one still has one foot in the water of the mikvah, the water of the mikveh would be viewed as extending upward and connecting to the water on his body. It would then be considered as if the person is completely submerged in the water of the mikvah.
- Does Rebbe Yehudah hold of גוד אסיק as well?
Ullah asked Rebbe Yochanan whether Rebbe Yehudah who holds of גוד אחית, holds of גוד אסיק as well. Rebbe Yochanan replied that it was taught in a Baraisa, that if there were three holes containing water on a slope of a valley, and the upper and lower holes contained twenty se’ah each, and the middle one contained forty se’ah, and a rush of rainwater connects them all, Rebbe Yehudah said that Rebbe Meir used to say: מטביל בעליונה – one may immerse in the upper hole, indicating that Rebbe Meir holds of גוד אסיק, and seems to prove that Rebbe Yehudah holds of it as well. When Rebbe Yochanan was presented with a second Baraisa where Rebbe Yehudah says that he disagrees with Rebbe Meir and holds that one may only immerse in the lower one, Rebbe Yochanan said to Ullah: אי תניא תניא – If it was taught specifically in a Baraisa it was taught, and I retract my proof.
