## Chagigah Daf 21a

###### Chagigah 21a:1
[Chagigah 21a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chagigah/r/21a:1)

הָאוֹנֵן וּמְחוּסַּר כִּפּוּרִים צְרִיכִין טְבִילָה לַקֹּדֶשׁ, אֲבָל לֹא לִתְרוּמָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**An acute mourner [*onen*],** i.e., someone who has experienced the loss of a close relative on that day, who had not come into contact with the deceased; **and one who is lacking atonement,** i.e., someone who still needs to bring an offering to complete his purification procedure, such as a *zav* or a woman after childbirth, both **require immersion** in order **to** eat **sacrificial** food. The *onen* would immerse after the day has passed and the one lacking atonement would immerse after the requisite offering is brought. **However,** immersion in these cases is **not** necessary **for** eating ***teruma*.**


###### Chagigah 21a:2
[Chagigah 21a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chagigah/r/21a:2)

**גְּמָ׳** בַּקֹּדֶשׁ מַאי טַעְמָא לָא? אָמַר רַבִּי אִילָא: מִפְּנֵי שֶׁכְּבֵידוֹ שֶׁל כְּלִי חוֹצֵץ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** It is taught in the mishna that one may not immerse one vessel inside another if they will be used for sacrificial food, though this may be done for *teruma*. The Gemara asks: **With regard to sacrificial** food, **what is the reason** that one may **not** immerse vessels in this manner? **Rabbi Ila said: Because the weight of the** inner **vessel causes an interposition** between the water and the vessels. That is, the innermost vessel weighs down on the bottom one, not allowing the water to reach the two vessels’ point of contact.


###### Chagigah 21a:3
[Chagigah 21a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chagigah/r/21a:3)

וְהָא מִדְּסֵיפָא מִשּׁוּם חֲצִיצָה, רֵישָׁא לָאו מִשּׁוּם חֲצִיצָה! דְּקָתָנֵי סֵיפָא: וְלֹא כְּמִדַּת הַקֹּדֶשׁ מִדַּת הַתְּרוּמָה, שֶׁבַּקֹּדֶשׁ מַתִּיר וּמְנַגֵּיב וּמַטְבִּיל וְאַחַר כָּךְ קוֹשֵׁר, וּבַתְּרוּמָה קוֹשֵׁר וְאַחַר כָּךְ מַטְבִּיל!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara poses a question on this explanation: **But is it not so that since the latter clause** of the mishna mentions that sacrificial foods and *teruma* differ **with regard to** matters of **interposition, the first clause** of the mishna must **not** be **with regard to** matters of **interposition,** but is referring to a different consideration? **As it teaches in the latter part** of the mishna: **The characteristics of *teruma* are not like the characteristics of sacrificial** food, **as in** the case of **sacrificial** food, if one has a garment or vessel that is tied up **he must untie** it **and dry** it, **and he may** then **immerse** them, **and afterward he may tie** them up again if he wishes; **but with regard to *teruma* he may tie** up the garment **and then immerse** it. This latter clause shows that there the Sages were concerned for any possibility of interposition with regard to sacrificial food, so most likely the earlier clause of the mishna is due to a different reason.


###### Chagigah 21a:4
[Chagigah 21a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chagigah/r/21a:4)

רֵישָׁא וְסֵיפָא מִשּׁוּם חֲצִיצָה, וּצְרִיכָא: דְּאִי אַשְׁמְעִינַן רֵישָׁא, הֲוָה אָמֵינָא הַיְינוּ טַעְמָא דִּלְקֹדֶשׁ לָא — מִשּׁוּם כְּבֵידוֹ שֶׁל כְּלִי דְּאִיכָּא, אֲבָל סֵיפָא, דְּלֵיכָּא כְּבֵידוֹ שֶׁל כְּלִי — אֵימָא לְקֹדֶשׁ נָמֵי לָא הָוֵי חֲצִיצָה. וְאִי אַשְׁמְעִינַן סֵיפָא, הֲוָה אָמֵינָא: הַיְינוּ טַעְמָא דִּלְקֹדֶשׁ לָא, מִשּׁוּם

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: No, this is not necessarily so. In both **the first clause and the latter clause** of the mishna the concern is **due to interposition, and** it is nevertheless **necessary** to teach us both cases. **For had** the mishna **taught us** only **the first clause,** i.e., that one may not immerse one vessel within another, **I would have said** that **this is the reason** one may **not** do so **for sacrificial** food: **Because there is the weight of** the interior **vessel** that must be taken into account. **But** in **the latter clause, where there is no weight of a vessel** to be considered, **I will say** that **it is not** considered an interposition **for sacrificial** food **either. And had it taught us** only **the latter clause** dealing with the knotted garments, **I would have said** that **this is the reason one may not** do so **for sacrificial** food: **Because** it is possible