Chagigah 22a (כב.) — the Talmud in English

the width equal to the thickness of the walls of the tube together with the hollow of the tube, which is an opening whose width is

two

version of the Mishnayot]

fingers

that

return to their place.

That is, the measure through which a person can insert into the opening his two fingers adjacent to the thumb [Meiri] and rotate them inside it in every direction.

The Gemara explains Rava's method:

Rava accepted

Rava's view,

in accordance with that which Rav Naḥman said in the name of Rabba bar Avuha: Eleven

[and not ten]

levels were taught here

in our Mishna [for the first level in our Mishna is separate from the fifth level, since their reasons differ]—

and they differ with regard to non-sacred food prepared in a state of purity for sacrificial food:

The six

levels

first

[the five explained above, together with the first level], are

for both sacrificial food and non-sacred food prepared in a state of purity for sacrificial food,

since they involve a concern of Torah-level impurity, as explained above.

Whereas the five levels

last

are

for sacrificial food

only,

but not for non-sacred food prepared in a state of purity for sacrificial food,

since they do not involve a concern of Torah-level impurity, as explained above.

And we explain:

What difference is there

[what practical difference is there in halakha]

between the

words of

Rava,

who explained that the reason for the first level is the decree concerning a vessel whose mouth is not the size of a shfoferet ha-nod,

and the

words of

Rabbi Ila,

who explained that its reason is interposition?

The difference between them is in the case of a basket and a gargutni

[a very large basket used to strain wine at the time of the grape harvest, placed beneath the stream of wine flowing from the winepress, so that the wine is strained through it and descends into the pit],

which one filled with vessels and immersed them.

According to the one who says

[Rabbi Ila] that the reason is

interposition,

even in this situation

there is

interposition, since the vessels press against the basket; therefore, one may not immerse vessels in it.

But

according to the one who says

[Rava] that the reason is

a decree on account of the possibility that one might immerse needles and tubes in a vessel whose mouth is not the size of a shfoferet ha-nod,

there is no impediment to immersing vessels in a basket and a gargutni, since

a basket and a gargutni whose mouths are not the size of a shfoferet ha-nod—

do not exist!

[They are not commonly found, and no decree was instituted concerning them].

And Rava proceeded—

who explained that the reason one may not immerse a vessel inside another vessel is a decree lest one immerse a vessel whose mouth is not the size of a shfoferet ha-nod—

according to his own approach

[according to his method]:

For Rava said:

a.

A basket and a gargutni that one filled with vessels and immersed them,

they are

pure

even for sacrificial food, since it is not common for their mouths to be narrower than a shfoferet ha-nod. This is in accordance with his method, as explained.

b.

And a ritual bath that one divided with a basket and a gargutni,

he placed a large basket in the middle of the ritual bath until it separated its waters, half on this side and half on that side. The walls of the basket reached the walls across the width of the ritual bath, and the waters mingled only through the holes in the woven basket, which were not the size of a shfoferet ha-nod. Even though it was entirely full of holes, the two parts of the ritual bath do not combine [Meiri].

Therefore:

one who immerses there has not achieved immersion.

And the proof that if the opening is not the size of a shfoferet ha-nod it does not constitute a connection is that

the entire earth is permeated with passages

[the entire earth is permeable], and waters that spring forth in a spring at one place come from a large river and are connected to it through the earth,

and

nevertheless

we require that there be forty se'a in one place.

Now the Gemara returns to the law explained above: one who immerses needles and tubes in a vessel whose mouth is not the size of a shfoferet ha-nod has not achieved immersion, since the water inside it is not connected to the ritual bath:

And this applies

when the immersion is ineffective for them if the mouth of the vessel into which they are being immersed does not have an opening the width of a shfoferet ha-nod, when one immerses

in

the

vessel

outer vessel that is

pure.

But

if he immersed them

in a vessel

that itself was also

impure,

then the vessels inside it are pure as well, even though the opening in the thickness of the vessel is not the size of a shfoferet ha-nod.

The reason is:

since immersion is effective for the entire body of the vessel,

because the immersion is effective for the outer vessel, and the water inside it is considered part of the ritual bath with regard to purifying it —

Therefore

immersion is likewise effective for them

immersion

for the vessels that are in it,

the immersion was effective even for the vessels located inside the vessel.

For we learned likewise that immersion is effective even for the vessels inside it when the outer vessel itself also requires immersion:

For it was taught

[in the version of the Shas]:

Vessels that one filled with vessels and immersed them are pure

for teruma [Rashi], whether their mouths are the size of a shfoferet ha-nod or whether their mouths are not the size of a shfoferet ha-nod.

And

however,

if he did not immerse

[if the outer vessel was pure and did not require immersion]—

the waters must be mingled until they are mingled to the measure of a shfoferet ha-nod!

That is, the water inside the outer vessel is not effective for immersing the vessels inside it until it is mingled [connected] with the water in the ritual bath through an opening as wide as a shfoferet ha-nod, as the Gemara proceeds to explain [as understood according to Rashi's version and explanation].

The Gemara explains the wording of the Mishna:

What does “and if he did not immerse” mean?

This is what it means: And if he does not need to immerse it

the outer vessel, because it is not impure, then

the mingled waters

are not effective for purifying the vessels inside it

until they are mingled

with the waters of the ritual bath through an opening whose width is

the size of a shfoferet ha-nod.

And this dispute between Rava and Rabbi Ila

who disagreed whether the reason one may not immerse a vessel inside another vessel is interposition or a decree on account of a vessel that does not have a shfoferet ha-nod—

is a dispute among tannaim

who disagreed concerning it.

For it was taught: A basket and a gargutni that one filled with vessels and immersed them, whether for sacrificial food or for teruma

they are

pure.

For this tanna holds like Rava, that the reason for the level is a decree on account of a vessel that does not have a shfoferet ha-nod; therefore, no decree was instituted concerning a basket and a gargutni, whose mouths are not ordinarily narrow.

Whereas

Abba Shaul says: For teruma

they are pure,

but not for sacrificial food.

For in his view, the reason for the law is interposition, and the same law applies to vessels immersed in a basket and a gargutni.

The Gemara raises an objection to the law stated in the beraita, which prohibited immersing a vessel inside another vessel for sacrificial food but not for teruma:

If so, teruma too

the Sages should have prohibited immersing a vessel inside another vessel, for the same reason that they said this with regard to sacrificial food?!

And we answer: They did not say this with regard to teruma, because:

To whom are we stating this

[to whom are we stating these laws concerning immersion]? We state them only to

members of the fellowship

for it is only to them that we state them, since the amei ha-aretz do not come before us to ask—and

members of the fellowship know:

that one must be concerned about interposition—according to Rabbi Ila—and therefore they raise the inner vessel so that it will not become tightly pressed against the bottom of the outer vessel [Rashi].

And they know how to distinguish between a vessel whose mouth is the size of a shfoferet ha-nod and a vessel whose mouth is not the size of a shfoferet ha-nod—according to Rava—for this measure is known.

Therefore, they did not institute a decree with regard to teruma.

And we challenge this:

If so—

sacrificial food as well

should not have been prohibited, since members of the fellowship know?!

And we answer: Nevertheless, there is concern lest

an am ha-aretz see it and go and immerse

[lest an am ha-aretz see him immersing] a vessel inside another vessel and mistakenly permit this immersion even when the inner vessel is not raised, or when the vessel's mouth is not the size of a shfoferet ha-nod, and place in it his libation wine and his meal-offering oil, which he brings to the Temple, as the Gemara proceeds to explain.

And we challenge: If so,

teruma too

should be prohibited, since there is concern lest

an am ha-aretz see it and go and immerse,

and use it for teruma and then give it to a kohen?! And we answer:

We do not accept [teruma] from them!

We do not accept teruma from an am ha-aretz, as we learned below, on page 24b: “If amei ha-aretz brought a kohen who is a member of the fellowship a barrel of teruma wine, he may not accept it from him.” But sacrificial food is accepted from him, as explained there [and this is a stringency with regard to teruma in comparison with sacrificial food].

And we challenge:

They should not accept sacrificial food from them either

[the Sages should say that they do not accept from an am ha-aretz] his wine for libations or his oil for meal offerings?!

And we answer:

It would cause

the am ha-aretz

resentment.

He would say: “Are we not members of the Jewish people, that you do not believe us?” [Rabbeinu Ḥananel].

And we challenge:

Teruma too—

if we do not accept it from them,

would it not cause him resentment?!

And we answer:

He does not care

to the am ha-aretz, and he bears no resentment over the fact that we do not accept teruma from him. Since

he goes

the am ha-aretz and

gives it

his teruma

to his fellow am ha-aretz who is a kohen

[he gives his teruma to his fellow am ha-aretz who is a kohen].

And who is the tanna who is concerned about resentment

[who is the tanna who is concerned about resentment]?

It is Rabbi Yose!