חגיגה 21 — Soncino English Talmud

¹A MOURNER [PRIOR TO THE BURIAL OF THE DECEASED], AND ONE WHO NEEDS TO BRING HIS ATONEMENT SACRIFICE [IN ORDER TO COMPLETE HIS PURIFICATION] REQUIRE IMMERSION FOR HALLOWED THINGS, BUT NOT FOR TERUMAH. GEMARA. Why not in the case of hallowed things? R. Ela said: Because the weight of the [inner] vessel forms an interposition. — But since the latter clause [of the Mishnah] is based on [the rule of] interposition. For it is taught in the latter clause: THE RULE [FOR THE IMMERSION OF GARMENTS] FOR [THOSE WHO WOULD EAT OF] TERUMAH IS NOT LIKE THE RULE FOR [THOSE WHO WOULD EAT OF] HALLOWED THINGS: FOR IN THE CASE OF HALLOWED THINGS, HE MUST [FIRST] UNTIE [ANY KNOTS IN THE UNCLEAN GARMENT], DRY IT [IF IT IS WET, THEN] IMMERSE IT, AND AFTERWARDS RETIE IT; BUT IN THE CASE OF TERUMAH, IT MAY [FIRST] BE TIED AND AFTERWARDS IMMERSED! — Both the former clause and the latter clause are based on [the rule of] interposition, and they are both required. For if [the Mishnah] taught us the former clause [only], I might have thought that the reason why it is not [permitted to immerse vessels within vessels] for hallowed things is because of the weight of the vessel [which interposes], but in the latter clause where there is no weight of a vessel [to interpose], I might have thought that it would not be deemed an interposition even for hallowed things; and if [the Mishnah] taught us the latter clause, I might have thought that the reason why it is not [permitted] in the case of hallowed things is because^ᵃ^ᵇ^ᶜ^ᵈ^ᵉ^ᶠ^ᵍ

^ᵃnote:Heb. ibut , opposed to kct , a mourner during the week following the burial. It is assumed here that the mourner had not become defiled by the corpse.
^ᵇnote:E.g., a gonorrhoeist who, after duly immersing himself on the seventh day of his uncleanness, has awaited sunset on that day, and now has only to bring his sacrifice on the morrow in order to complete his purification.
^ᶜnote:In the latter case after bringing the prescribed sacrifices.
^ᵈnote:Which may be eaten not only without immersion, but even before the sacrifices marking the completion of purification have been brought.
^ᵉnote:The question refers to the beginning of the Mishnah, i.e., why may not vessels within vessels be immersed for hallowed things just as for terumah?
^ᶠnote:The weight of the inner vessel prevents the water from reaching every part of the vessels, thus invalidating the immersion both of the outer and inner vessels. V. infra p. 139.
^ᵍnote:If the purpose of the two clauses is identical viz., to teach us that in the case of hallowed things even that which resembles interposition invalidates, but in the case of terumah only proper interposition, then the Mishnah should have contained one of the two clauses, not both.

²a knot becomes tightened 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. 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. 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, 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. As we have learnt: The union of immersion pools [requires a connecting stream] the size of the spout of a skin-bottle in breadth^ʰ^ⁱ^ʲ^ᵏ^ˡ^ᵐ

^ʰnote:Thus approximating to interposition.
^ⁱnote:Actually the latter clause is required because it also contains the rule: ‘He must dry it (if it is wet)’. But this is not 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.
^ʲnote:Since eleven points of difference are actually mentioned in the Mishnah, two, according to It. Ela, must be clue to the same reason and hence are counted as one.
^ᵏnote:I.e., as opposed to Rabbinic degrees of purity. For an explanation of how this violation of the Torah law of purity can come about v. Rashi s.v. trrs ; for a discussion of the latter five distinctions v. Tosaf. s.v. t,hhr,c .
^ˡnote:In which case the immersion would be invalid, because the water in the vessel would not be regarded as connected 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.
^ᵐnote:I.e., two adjoining pools can be combined to make up the prescribed quantity of forty se'ahs of water if there is an aperture in between allowing a stream (of the size mentioned) to flow between them.