Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

September 29, 2014 | 讛壮 讘转砖专讬 转砖注状讛

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Terri Krivosha for the Refuah Shlemah of her husband Harav Hayim Yehuda Ben Faiga Rivah.聽

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

Chagigah 21

Study Guide Chagigah 21


If the lesson doesn't play, click "Download"

讛讗讜谞谉 讜诪讞讜住专 讻驻讜专讬诐 爪专讬讻讬谉 讟讘讬诇讛 诇拽讚砖 讗讘诇 诇讗 诇转专讜诪讛

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.

讙诪壮 讘拽讚砖 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讬诇讗 诪驻谞讬 砖讻讘讬讚讜 砖诇 讻诇讬 讞讜爪抓

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鈥 point of contact.

讜讛讗 诪讚住讬驻讗 诪砖讜诐 讞爪讬爪讛 专讬砖讗 诇讗讜 诪砖讜诐 讞爪讬爪讛 讚拽转谞讬 住讬驻讗 讜诇讗 讻诪讚转 讛拽讚砖 诪讚转 讛转专讜诪讛 砖讘拽讚砖 诪转讬专 讜诪谞讙讬讘 讜诪讟讘讬诇 讜讗讞专 讻讱 拽讜砖专 讜讘转专讜诪讛 拽讜砖专 讜讗讞专 讻讱 诪讟讘讬诇

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.

专讬砖讗 讜住讬驻讗 诪砖讜诐 讞爪讬爪讛 讜爪专讬讻讗 讚讗讬 讗砖诪注讬谞谉 专讬砖讗 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 讛讬讬谞讜 讟注诪讗 讚诇拽讚砖 诇讗 诪砖讜诐 讻讘讬讚讜 砖诇 讻诇讬 讚讗讬讻讗 讗讘诇 住讬驻讗 讚诇讬讻讗 讻讘讬讚讜 砖诇 讻诇讬 讗讬诪讗 诇拽讚砖 谞诪讬 诇讗 讛讜讬 讞爪讬爪讛 讜讗讬 讗砖诪注讬谞谉 住讬驻讗 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 讛讬讬谞讜 讟注诪讗 讚诇拽讚砖 诇讗 诪砖讜诐

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

讚拽讬讟专讗 讘诪讬讗 讗讛讚讜拽讬 诪讬讛讚拽 讗讘诇 专讬砖讗 讚诪讬讗 讗拽驻讜讬讬 诪拽驻讜 诇讬讛 诇诪谞讗 诇讗 讛讜讬讗 讞爪讬爪讛 爪专讬讻讗

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.

专讘讬 讗讬诇讗 诇讟注诪讬讛 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讬诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讘专 驻驻讗 注砖专 诪注诇讜转 砖谞讜 讻讗谉 讞诪砖 专讗砖讜谞讜转 讘讬谉 诇拽讚砖 讘讬谉 诇讞讜诇讬谉 砖谞注砖讜 注诇 讟讛专转 讛拽讚砖 讗讞专讜谞讜转 诇拽讚砖 讗讘诇 诇讗 诇讞讜诇讬谉 砖谞注砖讜 注诇 讟讛专转 讛拽讚砖

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 岣nina 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.

诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讞诪砖 拽诪讬讬转讗 讚讗讬转 诇讛讜 讚专专讗 讚讟讜诪讗讛 诪讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讙讝专讜 讘讛讜 专讘谞谉 讘讬谉 诇拽讚砖 讘讬谉 诇讞讜诇讬谉 砖谞注砖讜 注诇 讟讛专转 讛拽讚砖 讘转专讬讬转讗 讚诇讬转 诇讛讜 讚专专讗 讚讟讜诪讗讛 诪讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讙讝专讜 讘讛讜 专讘谞谉 诇拽讚砖 诇讞讜诇讬谉 砖谞注砖讜 注诇 讟讛专转 讛拽讚砖 诇讗 讙讝专讜 讘讛讜 专讘谞谉

The Gemara explains Rabbi Ila鈥檚 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.

专讘讗 讗诪专 诪讚住讬驻讗 讛讜讬 诪砖讜诐 讞爪讬爪讛 专讬砖讗 诇讗讜 诪砖讜诐 讞爪讬爪讛 讜专讬砖讗 讛讬讬谞讜 讟注诪讗 讙讝讬专讛 砖诇讗 讬讟讘讬诇 诪讞讟讬谉 讜爪讬谞讜专讜转 讘讻诇讬 砖讗讬谉 讘驻讬讜 讻砖驻讜驻专转 讛谞讜讚 讻讚转谞谉 注讬专讜讘 诪拽讜讜讗讜转 讻砖驻讜驻专转 讛谞讜讚 讻注讜讘讬讛

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

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Terri Krivosha for the Refuah Shlemah of her husband Harav Hayim Yehuda Ben Faiga Rivah.聽

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

learn daf yomi one week at a time with tamara spitz

Chagigah: 21 – 27 + Siyum – Daf Yomi One Week at a Time

This we will continue learning about the world of purity and impurity. We will learn how and when vessels are...
Gefet in english with rabbanit yael shimoni

Who is an Am Haaretz? – Gefet 28

https://youtu.be/Gx3Sgut8YOo
talking talmud_square

Chagigah 21: Inside Outside

The starts the delve into the maalot. Why does kodesh have extra stringencies over terumah? Click here for the Talking...

Chagigah 21

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Chagigah 21

讛讗讜谞谉 讜诪讞讜住专 讻驻讜专讬诐 爪专讬讻讬谉 讟讘讬诇讛 诇拽讚砖 讗讘诇 诇讗 诇转专讜诪讛

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.

讙诪壮 讘拽讚砖 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讬诇讗 诪驻谞讬 砖讻讘讬讚讜 砖诇 讻诇讬 讞讜爪抓

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鈥 point of contact.

讜讛讗 诪讚住讬驻讗 诪砖讜诐 讞爪讬爪讛 专讬砖讗 诇讗讜 诪砖讜诐 讞爪讬爪讛 讚拽转谞讬 住讬驻讗 讜诇讗 讻诪讚转 讛拽讚砖 诪讚转 讛转专讜诪讛 砖讘拽讚砖 诪转讬专 讜诪谞讙讬讘 讜诪讟讘讬诇 讜讗讞专 讻讱 拽讜砖专 讜讘转专讜诪讛 拽讜砖专 讜讗讞专 讻讱 诪讟讘讬诇

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.

专讬砖讗 讜住讬驻讗 诪砖讜诐 讞爪讬爪讛 讜爪专讬讻讗 讚讗讬 讗砖诪注讬谞谉 专讬砖讗 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 讛讬讬谞讜 讟注诪讗 讚诇拽讚砖 诇讗 诪砖讜诐 讻讘讬讚讜 砖诇 讻诇讬 讚讗讬讻讗 讗讘诇 住讬驻讗 讚诇讬讻讗 讻讘讬讚讜 砖诇 讻诇讬 讗讬诪讗 诇拽讚砖 谞诪讬 诇讗 讛讜讬 讞爪讬爪讛 讜讗讬 讗砖诪注讬谞谉 住讬驻讗 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 讛讬讬谞讜 讟注诪讗 讚诇拽讚砖 诇讗 诪砖讜诐

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

讚拽讬讟专讗 讘诪讬讗 讗讛讚讜拽讬 诪讬讛讚拽 讗讘诇 专讬砖讗 讚诪讬讗 讗拽驻讜讬讬 诪拽驻讜 诇讬讛 诇诪谞讗 诇讗 讛讜讬讗 讞爪讬爪讛 爪专讬讻讗

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.

专讘讬 讗讬诇讗 诇讟注诪讬讛 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讬诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讘专 驻驻讗 注砖专 诪注诇讜转 砖谞讜 讻讗谉 讞诪砖 专讗砖讜谞讜转 讘讬谉 诇拽讚砖 讘讬谉 诇讞讜诇讬谉 砖谞注砖讜 注诇 讟讛专转 讛拽讚砖 讗讞专讜谞讜转 诇拽讚砖 讗讘诇 诇讗 诇讞讜诇讬谉 砖谞注砖讜 注诇 讟讛专转 讛拽讚砖

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 岣nina 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.

诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讞诪砖 拽诪讬讬转讗 讚讗讬转 诇讛讜 讚专专讗 讚讟讜诪讗讛 诪讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讙讝专讜 讘讛讜 专讘谞谉 讘讬谉 诇拽讚砖 讘讬谉 诇讞讜诇讬谉 砖谞注砖讜 注诇 讟讛专转 讛拽讚砖 讘转专讬讬转讗 讚诇讬转 诇讛讜 讚专专讗 讚讟讜诪讗讛 诪讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讙讝专讜 讘讛讜 专讘谞谉 诇拽讚砖 诇讞讜诇讬谉 砖谞注砖讜 注诇 讟讛专转 讛拽讚砖 诇讗 讙讝专讜 讘讛讜 专讘谞谉

The Gemara explains Rabbi Ila鈥檚 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.

专讘讗 讗诪专 诪讚住讬驻讗 讛讜讬 诪砖讜诐 讞爪讬爪讛 专讬砖讗 诇讗讜 诪砖讜诐 讞爪讬爪讛 讜专讬砖讗 讛讬讬谞讜 讟注诪讗 讙讝讬专讛 砖诇讗 讬讟讘讬诇 诪讞讟讬谉 讜爪讬谞讜专讜转 讘讻诇讬 砖讗讬谉 讘驻讬讜 讻砖驻讜驻专转 讛谞讜讚 讻讚转谞谉 注讬专讜讘 诪拽讜讜讗讜转 讻砖驻讜驻专转 讛谞讜讚 讻注讜讘讬讛

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

Scroll To Top