Chagigah

A MOURNER [PRIOR TO THE BURIAL OF THE DECEASED],1 AND ONE WHO NEEDS TO BRING HIS ATONEMENT SACRIFICE [IN ORDER TO COMPLETE HIS PURIFICATION]2 REQUIRE IMMERSION FOR HALLOWED THINGS,3 BUT NOT FOR TERUMAH.4 GEMARA. Why not in the case of hallowed things?5 R. Ela said: Because the weight of the [inner] vessel forms an interposition.6 — But since the latter clause [of the Mishnah] is based on [the rule of] interposition.7 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 had not become defiled by the corpse. that day, and now has only to bring his sacrifice on the morrow in order to complete his purification. purification have been brought. hallowed things just as for terumah? immersion both of the outer and inner vessels. V. infra p. 139. 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.