Chagigah — Daf 21b

דקיטרא במיא אהדוקי מיהדק אבל רישא דמיא אקפויי מקפו ליה למנא לא הויא חציצה צריכא

רבי אילא לטעמיה דאמר רבי אילא א"ר חנינא בר פפא עשר מעלות שנו כאן חמש ראשונות בין לקדש בין לחולין שנעשו על טהרת הקדש אחרונות לקדש אבל לא לחולין שנעשו על טהרת הקדש

מ"ט חמש קמייתא דאית להו דררא דטומאה מדאורייתא גזרו בהו רבנן בין לקדש בין לחולין שנעשו על טהרת הקדש בתרייתא דלית להו דררא דטומאה מדאורייתא גזרו בהו רבנן לקדש לחולין שנעשו על טהרת הקדש לא גזרו בהו רבנן

רבא אמר מדסיפא הוי משום חציצה רישא לאו משום חציצה ורישא היינו טעמא גזירה שלא יטביל מחטין וצינורות בכלי שאין בפיו כשפופרת הנוד כדתנן עירוב מקוואות כשפופרת הנוד כעוביה

a knot becomes tightened1 in water, but in [the case of] the former clause, where the water causes the vessel to float, it would not be deemed an interposition; therefore [both clauses] are required.2 R. Ela [in explaining the former clause to be based on the rule of interposition] is consistent in his view. For R. Ela said that R. Hanina b. Papa said: Ten distinctions [of hallowed things over terumah] are taught here.3 The former five apply both to hallowed things and to unconsecrated [food] prepared according to the purity of hallowed things: the latter [five] apply to hallowed things, but not to unconsecrated [food] prepared according to the purity of hallowed things. What is the reason? — The former five, which involve the risk of eventual violation of the law of Impurity according to the Torah,4 the Rabbis enacted both in regard to hallowed things and in regard to unconsecrated [food] prepared according to the purity of hallowed things. The latter [five], which do not involve the risk of the eventual violation of the law of purity according to the Torah, the Rabbis enacted in regard to hallowed things, but not in regard to unconsecrated [food] prepared according to the purity of hallowed things. Raba said: Since the latter clause is based on [the rule of] interposition, the former clause cannot be based on [the rule of] interposition; and as to the former clause, the reason is this: It is a Precautionary enactment so that one might not immerse needles and hooks in a vessel the mouth of which is not the size of the spout of a skin-bottle.5 As we have learnt: The union of immersion pools [requires a connecting stream]6 the size of the spout of a skin-bottle in breadth taken into account in our argument either because, (a) even if it were based on the principle of interposition it was held to follow from the first clause, or (b) it may be based not on the principle of interposition but on the fact that the original moisture could re-defile the garment and so render the Immersion useless. same reason and hence are counted as one. come about v. Rashi s.v. trrs ; for a discussion of the latter five distinctions v. Tosaf. s.v. t,hhr,c . with the water in the immersion pool, for the minimum size of the connecting stream (as explained in the following Mishnah) must be equivalent to the area of the tube of a skin-bottle. aperture in between allowing a stream (of the size mentioned) to flow between them.