Pesachim 15a — the Talmud in English

And what

“from their words

we have learned,” as Rabbi Meir says? —

From the words of Rabbi Hanina, Deputy of the Priests,

for the same law applies to teruma of hametz during the sixth hour.

For although, according to Torah law, the teruma is still fit for eating, it is permitted to render it impure through the impure teruma. For food does not render food impure; that is only rabbinic. And in any event, it is rabbinically forbidden from the sixth hour.

Said Resh Lakish in the name of Bar Kappara:

That is not the interpretation of our Mishna.

Rather,

the Mishna

deals with meat that became impure

through a father of impurity according to Torah law, together with meat that became impure

through

a derivative of impurity according to Torah law.

And in truth, one cannot prove from the words of Rabbi Hanina and Rabbi Akiva anything concerning pure hametz-teruma, that it is permitted to render it impure.

And

what

“from their words

we have learned,” as Rabbi Meir says? — It does not refer to the first clause of the Mishna. Rather,

from the words of Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Joshua

we learned this in another place.

And we raised the matter:

Which

Rabbi Eliezer and

Rabbi Joshua,

from whom Rabbi Meir learned this with regard to hametz?

If you say, this is Rabbi Joshua, as we learned: A barrel of teruma in which a doubt of impurity arose

[for example, an impure person entered there, and it is uncertain whether he touched it or did not touch it] —

Rabbi Eliezer says: If it was placed in an exposed place

[a place open to all],

he should place it in a concealed place. And if it was uncovered, he should cover it!

For even if it is not fit for eating, but only for kindling, one is still obligated to safeguard it so that it not become certainly impure.

And the reason for this is that it is written, “the safeguarding of My teruma.” And we read, “My terumot,” in the plural. And Rabbi Eliezer holds: “the reading is primary.” Two terumot are implied: one pure and one suspended [of uncertain impurity]. Both require safeguarding against impurity.

Rabbi Joshua says:

Not only is one not required to add to its safeguarding, but it is even permitted to diminish its safeguarding:

if it was placed in a

concealed place, he should place it in an exposed place. And if it was covered, he should uncover it!

For Rabbi Joshua holds: “the written form is primary and “the safeguarding of My teruma” is written, implying one. This means only the pure one. But the suspended one does not require safeguarding.

Infer from this that according to Rabbi Joshua, any teruma that is destined only for kindling does not require safeguarding. And from his words Rabbi Meir learned that the same law applies to hametz-teruma during the sixth hour of the eve of Passover. Since it is obligated to be removed, it is permitted to render it impure .

And we reject this:

Are

these comparable to one another?

For

there,

Rabbi Joshua did not permit rendering the suspended teruma impure by hand. Rather, only placing it in an exposed place, so that it would become impure on its own,

and it is merely indirect causation

that is involved.

But

here,

Rabbi Meir permitted even burning the pure one together with the impure one, despite the fact that through this he renders it impure

by hand.

And this cannot be learned from there.

And we conclude:

Rather, this

is what Bar Kappara said, that from the words of

Rabbi Joshua

we have learned this, namely, from that

which we learned:

A barrel

of wine

of pure teruma

that

was broken in the winepress

[in the place where grapes are trodden],

the upper one, and

in the

lower one

[in the pit located beneath the winepress] there are

impure non-sacred wine,

and the barrel broke, and the pure teruma wine is about to fall into the impure non-sacred wine and become impure through it, thereby also prohibiting the wine inside the pit, according to the law of impure teruma that became mixed with non-sacred produce, for the entire mixture becomes prohibited:

Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Joshua agree that if

he

can save from it

[from the teruma barrel]

a quarter-log

of wine

in purity —

he should save it!

For if he can manage to bring a pure vessel and save at least a quarter-log of wine in purity, he is obligated to take care to bring it and save the pure teruma wine, and he may not receive the wine in an impure vessel.

And even though in the meantime he will lose both the remainder of the wine in the barrel and the wine inside the pit. For in the meantime the remaining wine will fall into the impure non-sacred wine and become mixed with it, thereby prohibiting even that for eating. [According to the law of a mixture of non-sacred produce and teruma: if the teruma is pure, the entire mixture becomes prohibited to non-priests; and if it is impure, the mixture is forbidden even to priests. For a priest who eats impure teruma transgresses a positive commandment. Here too, the teruma wine will become impure through the non-sacred wine, and its law will be that of impure teruma mixed with non-sacred produce, all of which is forbidden even to priests].

Nevertheless, if he is able to save a quarter-log of wine in purity, he should do so, even at the cost of losing the impure non-sacred wine.

And if not,

if he cannot save even a quarter-log of the wine except by searching for a pure vessel, all the wine will fall into the non-sacred wine and become impure through it, and he will also lose the wine in the pit —

Rabbi Eliezer says: Let the entire

pure teruma fall into the pit

and become impure

on its own,

and

only that

he must not render it impure by hand.

And even though he will lose the non-sacred wine, it is forbidden to render the teruma impure by hand.

And Rabbi Joshua says: It is even

permitted for him to

render it impure by hand.

And this does not constitute a transgression of the mitzva of “the safeguarding of My teruma,” since in any event it is destined to become impure through the non-sacred wine.

It follows that Rabbi Joshua permitted rendering by hand any teruma that is destined for destruction. And from his words Rabbi Meir learned that the same law applies to pure teruma on the eve of Passover after the time of the prohibition.

And we ask:

If so,

what is the meaning of

“this—from their words

we have learned,” which implies the plural?

But only Rabbi Joshua held this way, whereas Rabbi Eliezer disagreed with him. If so,

“from his words

we have learned” —

he should have said

this to Rabbi Meir!?

And we answer:

This is what

Rabbi Meir

is saying: From the dispute of Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Joshua we have learned

that it is permitted to burn pure teruma together with impure teruma. For the halakha follows Rabbi Joshua against Rabbi Eliezer with regard to matters of purity, and according to his words it is permitted to do so.

And we prove this:

It is also precise

from our Mishna in this manner.

For

it

teaches

in Rabbi Yose’s reply to Rabbi Meir:

Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Joshua agree

that one burns this separately and that separately.

It follows that Rabbi Meir learned his ruling from the words of Rabbi Joshua.

And we conclude:

Infer from this!

And so

also

Rav Nahman said that Rav said in the name of Rav Avuh:

Rabbi Hanina, Deputy of the Priests, in

the Mishna

is speaking of the burning of meat that became impure

through a father of impurity according to Torah law, together with meat that became impure through

a

derivative of impurity according to Torah law.

And Rabbi Meir did not learn his ruling from his words.

Rather,

what

“from their words

did Rabbi Meir mean when he said that we have learned”? —

From the words of Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Joshua

who disagreed concerning a broken barrel of teruma.

Rava raised an objection to Rav Nahman

from that which was taught in a beraita:

Rabbi Yose said

to Rabbi Meir:

The subject under discussion is not comparable to the proof.

When our Sages testified

[Rabbi Hanina, Deputy of the Priests, and Rabbi Akiva],

what did they testify about?

If

it was like the testimony of Rabbi Hanina, did he not testify

about the meat

of sacred offerings

that became impure through a derivative of impurity, that it is burned together with meat that became impure through a father of impurity?

For

the meat

this

in any event is

impure

with third-degree impurity, it is permitted to render it impure again through the first meat,

and

even though through this the meat becomes

this impure

with second-degree impurity.

And

if

it was like the testimony of Rabbi Akiva, did he not testify

about the oil

of teruma

that was disqualified by one who immersed that day, that it is kindled in a lamp that became impure through one rendered impure by contact with a corpse?

For

since the oil

this

is in any event

disqualified,

it is permitted to kindle it in the impure lamp.

And

even though now this oil becomes

this impure,

to render others impure.

And

Rabbi Yose argued to Rabbi Meir:

We too agree

that this is so

with regard to teruma that became impure through a derivative

of a derivative

of impurity

and became third-degree impurity,

that it is burned together with teruma that became impure through a father of impurity,

despite the fact that it becomes second-degree impurity and renders others impure, since it is in any event disqualified.

But

pure teruma, although it is in any event destined to be burned, is forbidden to render impure on the eve of Passover. And not only the pure one, but even the suspended one [of uncertain impurity] is forbidden to burn together with the impure one. For

how can we burn

the

suspended

teruma with

the impure one?

For it is perhaps pure.

And

perhaps Elijah will come and permit its doubt

and purify it! And below [20b] he asks: in our Mishna, Rabbi Yose said that according to Rabbi Joshua it is permitted to burn the impure one together with the suspended one.

And below, on 20b, the Gemara raises the difficulty that in our Mishna Rabbi Yosei said that according to Rabbi Yehoshua it is permitted to burn the impure teruma together with the suspended teruma.