## Chagigah Daf 11a

###### Chagigah 11a:1
[Chagigah 11a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chagigah/r/11a:1)

בְּגִזְבָּר הַמְּסוּרוֹת לוֹ אַבְנֵי בִנְיָן עָסְקִינַן, דְּכׇל הֵיכָא דְּמַנְּחָה — בִּרְשׁוּתָא דִּידֵיהּ מַנְּחָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rather, **we are dealing with the treasurer** of the Temple, **to whom the** consecrated **building stones were transferred** for safekeeping. The reason for the exemption is **that anywhere that** the stone **is resting, it is** considered to be **resting within his domain.** Consequently, he is not liable for picking up the stone or beam, as he is permitted to carry it. However, he does not have permission to give it to someone else, and therefore when he hands it over to someone else he has misused consecrated property. If so, this *halakha* is also perfectly logical and should not be considered like mountains suspended by a hair.


###### Chagigah 11a:2
[Chagigah 11a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chagigah/r/11a:2)

אֶלָּא מִסֵּיפָא: בְּנָאָהּ בְּתוֹךְ בֵּיתוֹ — הֲרֵי זֶה לֹא מָעַל עַד שֶׁיָּדוּר תַּחְתֶּיהָ בְּשָׁוֶה פְּרוּטָה. מִכְּדֵי שַׁנּוֹיֵי שַׁנְּיַיהּ, מָה לִי דָּר וּמָה לִי לָא דָּר, הַיְינוּ כַּהֲרָרִין הַתְּלוּיִין בִּשְׂעָרָה?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather,** the comparison of these *halakhot* to mountains suspended by a hair is based **on the latter clause** of that same mishna: **If he built** the stone **into his house, he has not misused** consecrated property **until he dwells under it** an amount of time **that is worth a *peruta*. Since he has changed** the stone by incorporating it into his house, **what** difference **is** there **to me** if **he dwelt** there, **and what** difference **is** there **to me** if he did **not dwell** there? Apparently, **this is** the *halakha* considered **like mountains suspended by a hair.**


###### Chagigah 11a:3
[Chagigah 11a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chagigah/r/11a:3)

וּמַאי קוּשְׁיָא? דִּלְמָא לְכִדְרַב. דְּאָמַר רַב: כְּגוֹן שֶׁהִנִּיחָהּ עַל פִּי אֲרוּבָּה. אִי דָּר בֵּיהּ — אִין, לָא דָּר בֵּיהּ — לָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara rejects this claim. **And what is** the logical **difficulty** with this *halakha*? **Perhaps** it is stated **in accordance with** the opinion **of Rav. As Rav said:** This mishna is referring to a case **where he placed** the stone **over a window,** but he did not make any adjustment to the stone itself. **If he dwelt in** the house, **yes,** he has misused consecrated property, as he derived benefit from it. If **he did not dwell in it, no,** he has not misused consecrated property, as he gained no benefit from the stone.


###### Chagigah 11a:4
[Chagigah 11a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chagigah/r/11a:4)

אֶלָּא לְעוֹלָם כִּדְרָבָא. וּדְקָא קַשְׁיָא לָךְ: מִידֵּי דְּהָוֵה אַמּוֹצִיא מְעוֹת הֶקְדֵּשׁ לְחוּלִּין, הָתָם מִידָּע יָדַע דְּאִיכָּא זוּזֵי דְהֶקְדֵּשׁ, אִיבַּעְיָא לֵיהּ לְעַיּוֹנֵי. הָכָא מִי יָדַע! הַיְינוּ כַּהֲרָרִין הַתְּלוּיִין בִּשְׂעָרָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather,** the reason is **actually in accordance with** the aforementioned opinion **of Rava,** who holds that the innovative element of this *halakha* involves a case where the homeowner remembered, which caused the agent to misuse consecrated property. **And** with regard to that **which** posed **a difficulty for you,** i.e., that the *halakha* here should be **just as it is with** regard to **one who spends consecrated money for non-sacred** purposes, the two cases are not identical. **There,** in the case that Rava mentioned, the agent **knew that he** also **had consecrated coins** and therefore **he should have examined** carefully whether this money was consecrated. **Here, did** the agent **know** that there was a possibility that the money was consecrated? **This is** why this *halakha* is **like mountains suspended by a hair.**


###### Chagigah 11a:5
[Chagigah 11a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chagigah/r/11a:5)

מִקְרָא מוּעָט וַהֲלָכוֹת מְרוּבּוֹת. תָּנָא: נְגָעִים וְאֹהָלוֹת, מִקְרָא מוּעָט וַהֲלָכוֹת מְרוּבּוֹת. נְגָעִים מִקְרָא מוּעָט? נְגָעִים מִקְרָא מְרוּבֶּה הוּא! אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא, הָכִי קָאָמַר: נְגָעִים — מִקְרָא מְרוּבֶּה וַהֲלָכוֹת מוּעָטוֹת, אֹהָלוֹת — מִקְרָא מוּעָט וַהֲלָכוֹת מְרוּבּוֹת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna explained that those matters that are like mountains suspended by a hair have **little** written about them in **the Torah, and** yet the details of their ***halakhot* are numerous.** A Sage **taught** in the *Tosefta*: The *halakhot* of **leprosy and** the *halakhot* of ritual impurity imparted by **tents** in which a corpse lies have **little in the Torah and** their ***halakhot* are numerous.** The Gemara asks: With regard to **leprosy,** is there **little** about their *halakhot* in **the Torah? Leprosy is** something about which there are **numerous** details stated in **the Torah** (see Leviticus, chapters 13–14). **Rav Pappa said** that **this is what** the mishna **is saying: Leprosy has numerous** details in **the Torah but** relatively **few *halakhot*.** In contrast, the case of ritual impurity imparted by **tents** has **little** in **the Torah but numerous *halakhot*.**


###### Chagigah 11a:6
[Chagigah 11a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chagigah/r/11a:6)

וּמַאי נָפְקָא מִינַּהּ? אִי מִסְתַּפְּקָא לָךְ מִילְּתָא בִּנְגָעִים — עַיֵּין בִּקְרָאֵי, וְאִי מִסְתַּפְּקָא לָךְ מִילְּתָא בְּאֹהָלוֹת — עַיֵּין בְּמַתְנִיתִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And what is the practical difference** whether there are numerous or few references to a particular *halakha* in the Torah? The Gemara answers: **If you are uncertain** about **a matter with** regard to the *halakhot* of **leprosy, delve into the verses,** as it is treated extensively there. **And if you are uncertain** about **a matter with** regard to the *halakhot* of the ritual impurity imparted by **tents, delve into the Mishna,** as these *halakhot* are not sufficiently explicated in the Torah.


###### Chagigah 11a:7
[Chagigah 11a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chagigah/r/11a:7)

דִּינִין. מִיכְתָּב כְּתִיבָן! לֹא נִצְרְכָה אֶלָּא לְכִדְרַבִּי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna taught that **monetary law** is one of those matters that have something to support them in the Torah. The Gemara asks: Monetary laws **are written** in the Torah; why does the mishna merely say it has something to support it? The Gemara answers: This **is necessary only** according to the opinion **of Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi.


###### Chagigah 11a:8
[Chagigah 11a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chagigah/r/11a:8)

דְּתַנְיָא, רַבִּי אוֹמֵר: ״נֶפֶשׁ תַּחַת נָפֶשׁ״ — מָמוֹן. אַתָּה אוֹמֵר מָמוֹן, אוֹ אֵינוֹ אֶלָּא נֶפֶשׁ מַמָּשׁ? נֶאֶמְרָה נְתִינָה לְמַטָּה. וְנֶאֶמְרָה נְתִינָה לְמַעְלָה. מָה לְהַלָּן — מָמוֹן, אַף כָּאן — מָמוֹן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara elaborates. **As it is taught** in a *baraita* that **Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi **says:** “But if any harm follow, then you shall give **life for life”** (Exodus 21:23). This verse is referring to a payment of **money.** Do **you say money, or** perhaps **it is solely an actual life** that is demanded? The term **giving is stated below:** “You shall give life for life,” **and giving is stated above,** in the previous verse: “And he shall give as the judges determine” (Exodus 21:22). **Just as there,** the giving is in the form of **money, so too here,** it is referring to a payment of **money.** Although this *halakha* is not explicit in the Torah, the verses lend support to it.


###### Chagigah 11a:9
[Chagigah 11a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chagigah/r/11a:9)

עֲבוֹדוֹת. מִיכְתָּב כְּתִיבָן! לֹא נִצְרְכָה אֶלָּא לְהוֹלָכַת הַדָּם. דְּתַנְיָא: ״וְהִקְרִיבוּ״, זוֹ קַבָּלַת הַדָּם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna stated that the *halakhot* of sacrificial **rites** have something to support them. The Gemara asks: Sacrificial rites **are written** explicitly in the Torah. The Gemara answers: It **is necessary** to state that sacrificial rites have merely something to support them **only with regard to** the rite of **carrying the blood** to the altar. **As it is taught** in a *baraita*: “And Aaron’s sons, the priests, **shall offer** the blood” (Leviticus 1:5); **this is** referring to **collecting the blood,** which is the stage before carrying the blood to the altar.


###### Chagigah 11a:10
[Chagigah 11a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chagigah/r/11a:10)

וְאַפְּקַהּ רַחֲמָנָא בִּלְשׁוֹן הוֹלָכָה, דִּכְתִיב: ״וְהִקְרִיב הַכֹּהֵן אֶת הַכֹּל וְהִקְטִיר הַמִּזְבֵּחָה״, וְאָמַר מָר: זוֹ הוֹלָכַת אֵבָרִים לַכֶּבֶשׁ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And the Merciful One expressed** collecting the blood **in the language of carrying,** i.e., by means of the term offer. **As it is written: “And the priest shall offer the whole, and make it smoke upon the altar”** (Leviticus 1:13). **And the Master said** that this term, “offer,” is not referring to sacrificing on the altar, as that is expressed by the phrase: “Make it smoke upon the altar.” Rather, **this is** referring to **carrying the limbs to the ramp** next to the altar, from where it is placed on the altar itself.


###### Chagigah 11a:11
[Chagigah 11a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chagigah/r/11a:11)

לְמֵימְרָא דְּהוֹלָכָה לָא תַּפְּקַהּ מִכְּלַל קַבָּלָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Evidently, the Torah is referring to collecting the blood with the same terminology it used when referring to carrying. **That is to say that carrying should not be excluded from the category of collecting.** In other words, all the *halakhot* that pertain to collecting the blood of offerings, e.g., that it must be performed by a priest with his right hand, apply equally to carrying the blood.


###### Chagigah 11a:12
[Chagigah 11a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chagigah/r/11a:12)

טְהָרוֹת. מִיכְתָּב כְּתִיבָן! לֹא נִצְרְכָה אֶלָּא לְשִׁיעוּר מִקְוֶה דְּלָא כְּתִיבָא, דְּתַנְיָא: ״וְרָחַץ אֶת בְּשָׂרוֹ בְּמַיִם״ — בְּמֵי מִקְוֶה. ״אֶת כׇּל בְּשָׂרוֹ״ — מַיִם שֶׁכׇּל גּוּפוֹ עוֹלֶה בָּהֶן, וְכַמָּה הֵן — אַמָּה עַל אַמָּה בְּרוּם שָׁלֹשׁ אַמּוֹת. וְשִׁיעֲרוּ חֲכָמִים מֵי מִקְוֶה אַרְבָּעִים סְאָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna further taught that the *halakhot* of **ritual purity** have something to support them. The Gemara again asks: But ritual purity **is written** explicitly in the Torah. The Gemara answers: The observation that the *halakhot* of ritual purity merely have something to support them **is necessary only for** the minimum **measure of a ritual bath, which is not written** explicitly in the Torah. **As it is taught** in a *baraita*: **“And he shall bathe his flesh in water”** (Leviticus 14:9). This means **in the water of a ritual bath.** And it is stated: “And he shall wash **all his flesh** in water” (Leviticus 15:16), which indicates that it must contain **water in which his whole body can enter. And how much** water **is this? One cubit by one cubit with a height of three cubits. And the Sages estimated** that the measure for **ritual bath water** is **forty *se’a*.**


###### Chagigah 11a:13
[Chagigah 11a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chagigah/r/11a:13)

טְמָאוֹת. מִיכְתָּב כְּתִיבָן! לֹא נִצְרְכָא אֶלָּא לְכַעֲדָשָׁה מִן הַשֶּׁרֶץ, דְּלָא כְּתִיבָא. דְּתַנְיָא: ״בָּהֶם״ —

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna stated that the *halakhot* of **ritual impurity** also have something to support them. Once again the Gemara asks: Ritual impurity **is written** explicitly in the Torah. The Gemara answers: This **is necessary only with regard to the** size **of a lentil-bulk from a creeping animal, which is not written. As it is taught** in a *baraita* with regard to a verse that deals with creeping animals: “Whoever touches **them** when they are dead shall be impure” (Leviticus 11:31).


###### Chagigah 11a:14
[Chagigah 11a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chagigah/r/11a:14)

יָכוֹל בְּכוּלָּן, תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״מֵהֶם״. יָכוֹל בְּמִקְצָתָן — תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״בָּהֶם״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
One **might** have thought that only someone who touches **an entire,** whole creeping animal becomes ritually impure. **The verse states:** “And upon whatever any **of them** falls, when they are dead, it shall be impure” (Leviticus 11:32). “Of them” indicates that this *halakha* applies even if one comes into contact with a part of them. One **might** have thought that even **some of them** suffices to impart impurity. **The verse states: “Them,”** i.e., all of them. This conclusion apparently contradicts the first ruling.


###### Chagigah 11a:15
[Chagigah 11a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chagigah/r/11a:15)

הָא כֵּיצַד? עַד שֶׁיַּגִּיעַ בְּמִקְצָתוֹ שֶׁהוּא כְּכוּלּוֹ. שִׁיעֲרוּ חֲכָמִים בְּכַעֲדָשָׁה, שֶׁכֵּן חוֹמֶט — תְּחִלָּתוֹ בְּכַעֲדָשָׁה. רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: כִּזְנַב הַלְּטָאָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**How** can **this** apparent contradiction be resolved? One does not become impure **until he touches some of it that is like the whole,** i.e., a significant amount. And **the Sages estimated** this measure as the size **of a lentil-bulk.** The reason is **that** in **its early** stages, **the *ḥomet*,** the smallest of these creeping animals, is the size **of a lentil-bulk. Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, says:** The size of a lentil-bulk is that **of a lizard’s tail,** which is considered a part that is like the whole. The tail of a lizard can be cut off easily, and as it continues to twitch even after it has been cut off, it has the appearance of life. Consequently, it is fitting to label it as a part that is like the whole.


###### Chagigah 11a:16
[Chagigah 11a:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chagigah/r/11a:16)

עֲרָיוֹת. מִיכְתָּב כְּתִיבָן! לֹא נִצְרְכָה

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna further taught that the *halakhot* of those with whom relations are forbidden have something to support them. The Gemara asks: The *halakhot* of **those with whom relations are forbidden are written** explicitly in the Torah. The Gemara answers: This **is necessary only**