Study Chagigah folio 21B with parallel Hebrew-English text, traditional commentary, and modern study tools. Free access to Babylonian Talmud online.
Text Excerpt
דקיטרא במיא אהדוקי מיהדק, אבל רישא, דמיא אקפויי מקפו ליה למנא — לא הויא חציצה, צריכא.
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 Mishnah, 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.
רבי אילא לטעמיה, דאמר רבי אילא אמר רבי חנינא בר פפא: עשר מעלות שנו כאן, חמש ראשונות — בין לקדש, בין לחולין שנעשו על טהרת הקדש, אחרונות — לקדש, אבל לא לחולין שנעשו על טהרת הקדש.
The Talmud comments: R' Ila here conforms to his standard line of reasoning in considering these two issues as one, as R' Ila said that R' Ḥanina bar Pappa said: They taught 10 stringencies of sacrificial food here in this Mishnah, rather than the apparent 11. The first 5 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 5 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 R' Ila counts only 10 cases in the Mishnah shows that he considered the two cases discussed above to be of the same category, and therefore they are counted together as one stringency.
מאי טעמא: חמש קמייתא, דאית להו דררא דטומאה מדאורייתא — גזרו בהו רבנן בין לקדש בין לחולין שנעשו על טהרת הקדש, בתרייתא, דלית להו דררא דטומאה מדאורייתא — גזרו בהו רבנן לקדש, לחולין שנעשו על טהרת הקדש — לא גזרו בהו רבנן.
The Talmud explains R' Ila’s statement. What is the reason for this distinction? With regard to the first 5 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 rabbis 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 5, which do not have a connection to impurity by Torah law, as their entire impurity is based on a rabbinic decree, the rabbis 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 rabbis did not decree these stringencies for such foods.