## Chagigah Daf 21b

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

דְּקִיטְרָא בְּמַיָּא אִהַדּוֹקֵי מִיהַדַּק, אֲבָל רֵישָׁא, דְּמַיָּא אַקְפּוֹיֵי מַקְפּוּ לֵיהּ לְמָנָא — לָא הָוְיָא חֲצִיצָה, צְרִיכָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**that** it is the nature of **knots** to **tighten** even more **in water,** creating an interposition that bars the water from entering all the way, **but** in the case of **the first clause** of the mishna, which deals with one vessel inside another and **where water** by nature **causes the** top **vessel to** lighten and **float** away from the lower vessel rather than weigh down on it, I would have said that **it is not** considered an **interposition.** It is therefore **necessary** for the *halakha* to be stated in both cases.


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

רַבִּי אִילָא לְטַעְמֵיהּ, דְּאָמַר רַבִּי אִילָא אָמַר רַבִּי חֲנִינָא בַּר פָּפָּא: עֶשֶׂר מַעֲלוֹת שָׁנוּ כָּאן, חָמֵשׁ רִאשׁוֹנוֹת — בֵּין לַקֹּדֶשׁ, בֵּין לְחוּלִּין שֶׁנַּעֲשׂוּ עַל טׇהֳרַת הַקֹּדֶשׁ, אַחֲרוֹנוֹת — לַקֹּדֶשׁ, אֲבָל לֹא לְחוּלִּין שֶׁנַּעֲשׂוּ עַל טׇהֳרַת הַקֹּדֶשׁ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara comments: **Rabbi Ila** here conforms **to his** standard line of **reasoning** in considering these two issues as one, **as Rabbi Ila said** that **Rabbi Ḥanina bar Pappa said: They taught ten stringencies** of sacrificial food **here** in this mishna, rather than the apparent eleven. The **first five** stringencies apply **both to the sacrificial** foods themselves and **to non-sacred** food **that was prepared according to** the standards of **purity of sacrificial** food, whereas the **last** five apply only **to** actual **sacrificial** food **but not to non-sacred** food **that was prepared according to** the standards of **purity of sacrificial** food. The fact that Rabbi Ila counts only ten cases in the mishna shows that he considered the two cases discussed above to be of the same category, and therefore they are counted together as one stringency.


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

מַאי טַעְמָא: חֲמֵשׁ קַמָּיָיתָא, דְּאִית לְהוּ דְּרָרָא דְטוּמְאָה מִדְּאוֹרָיְיתָא — גְּזַרוּ בְּהוּ רַבָּנַן בֵּין לְקֹדֶשׁ בֵּין לְחוּלִּין שֶׁנַּעֲשׂוּ עַל טׇהֳרַת הַקֹּדֶשׁ, בָּתְרָיָיתָא, דְּלֵית לְהוּ דְּרָרָא דְטוּמְאָה מִדְּאוֹרָיְיתָא — גְּזַרוּ בְּהוּ רַבָּנַן לְקֹדֶשׁ, לְחוּלִּין שֶׁנַּעֲשׂוּ עַל טׇהֳרַת הַקֹּדֶשׁ — לָא גְּזַרוּ בְּהוּ רַבָּנַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains Rabbi Ila’s statement. **What is the reason** for this distinction? With regard to the **first five** stringencies, **which have a connection to impurity** as defined **by Torah law** because ignoring them can lead to a case of impurity by Torah law as opposed to merely rabbinic law, **the Sages decreed these** stringencies **both for** actual **sacrificial** food **and for non-sacred** food **prepared according to** the standards of **purity of sacrificial** food. However, with regard to the **last** five, **which do not have a connection to impurity by Torah law,** as their entire impurity is based on a rabbinic decree, **the Sages decreed these** stringencies only **for** actual **sacrificial** food. But **with regard to non-sacred** food **made according to** the standards of **purity of sacrificial** food, **the Sages did not decree** these stringencies **for** such foods.


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

רָבָא אָמַר: מִדְּסֵיפָא הָוֵי מִשּׁוּם חֲצִיצָה, רֵישָׁא לָאו מִשּׁוּם חֲצִיצָה. וְרֵישָׁא, הַיְינוּ טַעְמָא: גְּזֵירָה שֶׁלֹּא יַטְבִּיל מְחָטִין וְצִינּוֹרוֹת בִּכְלִי שֶׁאֵין בְּפִיו כִּשְׁפוֹפֶרֶת הַנּוֹד. כְּדִתְנַן: עֵירוּב מִקְווֹאוֹת, כִּשְׁפוֹפֶרֶת הַנּוֹד, כְּעוֹבְיָהּ

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava** disagreed with Rabbi Ila. He **said** that **since** the reason for the stringency in **the latter clause is due to** concern for interposition, this implies that the reason for the stringency in **the first clause is not due to interposition,** but to a different reason. **And** with regard to the stringency in **the first clause** that one may not immerse one vessel within another, **this is the reasoning:** It is **a** rabbinic **decree** to ensure **that one not immerse** small vessels, such as **needles and hooks, inside a vessel whose mouth** is less than the width of **the tube of a wineskin.** In such a case the water in the bottle would not be considered attached to the rest of the ritual bath, **as we learned** in a mishna (*Mikvaot* 6:7): **The joining of** different bodies of water in cases of **ritual baths** takes place if the opening between the two bodies is at least as wide **as** the width of **the tube of a wineskin,** counting both the **thickness** of the wall of the tube