Pesachim 15b — the Talmud in English

And the Gemara brings the conclusion of the words of the Tosefta: Rabbi Yosei further replied to Rabbi Meir: The sacrificial meat

of

sacrificial meat that is

piggul [such as when he had the intention at the time of its slaughter to eat it beyond its time or beyond its place],

and

the

sacrificial meat

that remains

beyond its time,

and

sacrificial meat

that is impure,

whose law is that they are burned:

Beit Shammai say: They may not

the meat of piggul, the meat that remains, and the impure meat

be burned together [together], because through this they become impure. And even though their law is that they are to be burned, it is forbidden to make them impure. And although in any event the Sages decreed concerning them that they render the hands impure, it is forbidden to make them impure with impurity from the Torah.

And Beit Hillel say:

all of them

may be burned together.

And we are not concerned that the impure meat will render the piggul and the meat that remains impure. Since in any event the Sages decreed impurity upon them.

And Rabbi Yosei proved from this: Beit Hillel did not disagree until this point except because they have rabbinic impurity. But were it not for this, according to everyone it would have been forbidden to make them impure.

It follows that it is forbidden to make pure sacrificial meat impure, even though it is going to be lost. And the same applies to pure teruma of leaven on the eve of Passover.

And Rava concluded his objection: It is taught explicitly in Rabbi Yosei’s reply that the case of burning pure teruma together with impure teruma on Passover is not similar to that of Rabbi Hanina.

And if it should enter your mind that Rabbi Meir stated his law from the words of Rabbi Yehoshua,

his law,

why did Rabbi Yosei reply to him

to distinguish

from Rabbi Hanina, the Deputy High Priest?

from the case of Rabbi Ḥanina, Deputy of the Priests?

But Rabbi Meir did not prove his law from there.

Rav Naḥman said to him: Rabbi Yosei—

was not aware!

He did not know from where Rabbi Meir had learned this.

For he [Rabbi Yosei]

thought,

that

Rabbi Meir from

the midst of his words

of Rabbi Hanina, the Deputy High Priest, stated it to him

in this manner. And therefore he replied to him what he replied.

And

therefore

he said to him

Rabbi Meir: I did not learn it from there. Rather,

I—

from

what

that

Rabbi Yehoshua

permitted

to make

teruma that is going to be lost impure

I stated

that one burns the pure together with the impure!

And

again

he said to him

Rabbi Yosei: And

even according to Rabbi Yehoshua—

it is also not the measure,

to learn from his words concerning pure teruma on the eve of Passover.

For Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua agree that one burns

this

by itself and

this

by itself.

And we raised it:

And why is it not the measure?

Behold,

it is measure for measure!

For just as, when a barrel was broken, Rabbi Yehoshua permitted making the teruma wine impure because in the end it would become impure, so too he should permit making the pure teruma of leaven impure. For in any event it is going to be lost.

And we answered:

That case is different,

in the case of a barrel that was broken in the winepress, where he permitted making it impure by hand, because if he does not receive the wine in the impure vessel, the wine will fall into the pit and become mixed with the non-sacred wine in it, and

there is loss of non-sacred property.

For from now on it will be forbidden to eat because of the mixture of the impure teruma.

Rav Yirmeya challenged this:

But in

our Mishna too there is loss of wood.

For if we forbid burning the impure together with the pure, he will have to light two fires and use additional wood. And because of this loss, we should permit him to burn them together and make the pure one impure.

A certain elder said to him

to Rav Yirmeya:

They were concerned about a substantial loss,

of the non-sacred wine in the pit,

they were concerned.

But

about a minor loss,

of the additional wood,

they were not concerned.

Rabbi Asi said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said:

The

dispute

between Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yosei is on the eve of Passover

at

the hour

six.

For the teruma of leaven is forbidden at that time only by rabbinic law. But according to the Torah it is still permitted to eat. And therefore Rabbi Yosei forbade making it impure.

But at

the hour

seven,

when leaven is forbidden at that time according to the Torah,

according to everyone one burns

the pure teruma together with the impure. For since it is forbidden to eat according to Torah law, it is like an impure item.

Rabbi Zeira said to Rabbi Asi:

Should we

say,

from this,

that Rabbi Yoḥanan holds that our Mishna concerns a primary source of impurity from the Torah and a derivative of impurity by rabbinic law?

And that is: Rabbi Hanina permitted burning meat that became impure through a primary source of impurity from the Torah together with meat that became impure through a derivative of impurity by rabbinic law.

And what

“From their words

we learned,” which Rabbi Meir says—

from the words of Rabbi Hanina, the Deputy High Priest

he says.

And what Rabbi Meir permitted, to make the pure item impure on the eve of Passover, is not because it is going to burning, as Rabbi Yehoshua said. Rather, it is because it is forbidden to eat by rabbinic law. And Rabbi Meir compares a rabbinic prohibition of eating to meat impure with rabbinic impurity, which Rabbi Hanina, the Deputy High Priest, permitted to make impure through meat impure with impurity from the Torah.

And according to this, it is permitted to make the teruma impure specifically at the sixth hour, when it is forbidden to eat by rabbinic law. But at the fourth and fifth hours, Rabbi Meir will agree that it is forbidden to make it impure. For even by rabbinic law it is not forbidden to eat.

Or perhaps, Rabbi Meir’s reason is not because of a rabbinic prohibition. Rather, it is because it is going to burning, like Rabbi Yehoshua. And if so, even at the fourth and fifth hours it is permitted to make it impure. And when Rabbi Yoḥanan says, “The dispute is at six,” he does not mean this specifically. Rather, Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yosei also disagreed earlier.

He said to him,

Rabbi Asi:

Yes!

Rabbi Yoḥanan said specifically that they disagreed at six , and not earlier. And Rabbi Meir learned his law from the words of Rabbi Hanina, the Deputy High Priest, and not from the words of Rabbi Yehoshua.

It was also stated

so:

Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Our Mishna concerns a primary source of impurity from the Torah and a derivative of impurity by rabbinic law. And what

“From their words

we learned,” which Rabbi Meir says—

from the words of Rabbi Hanina, the Deputy High Priest,

who permitted making a third-degree item, by rabbinic law, impure through a second-degree item. And Rabbi Meir’s reason is that the teruma is forbidden at the sixth hour by rabbinic law. And he derives a rabbinic prohibition from rabbinic impurity, which it is permitted to make impure.

And the dispute is at six. But at seven—

according to everyone one burns!

And before six, according to everyone, one does not burn the pure together with the impure, because there is not even a rabbinic prohibition in it.

And we prove:

Let us say that a beraita supports him,

Rabbi Yoḥanan, who said, “At seven, according to everyone one burns.”

For we learned above: Rabbi Yosei replied to Rabbi Meir: The meat

of the piggul and

meat

that remains and

the

impure meat—

Beit Shammai say: They may not be burned together, so that the impure meat should not render the piggul and the meat that remains impure.

And Beit Hillel say: They may be burned

all

together,

since in any event the piggul and the meat that remains are forbidden to eat.

And Rabbi Yosei holds that Beit Hillel permitted making impure specifically piggul and the meat that remains, which are forbidden according to the Torah.

But they did not permit an item whose prohibition is only by rabbinic law.

It follows that Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yosei disagree only concerning a rabbinic prohibition, namely, at the sixth hour. But at the seventh hour, when its prohibition is from the Torah, everyone agrees that one burns the impure together with the pure.

And we reject this: There is no proof from there.

For perhaps Rabbi Yosei always disagrees even at the beginning of seven. And although the teruma is then forbidden according to the Torah, nevertheless it does not have the status of impurity. Therefore it is forbidden to make it impure.

And that case is different,

the piggul and the meat that remains, for Beit Hillel did not permit making them impure because of their prohibition. Rather, because

in any event

they have rabbinic impurity.

And as we learned:

The piggul and the meat that remains render the hands impure.

For anyone who touches them has impure hands. And they decreed this impurity in order to prevent the priests from making the offering piggul, from being negligent in eating it, and from leaving some of it beyond its time. And they did not decree impurity upon the entire body, but only upon the hands.

And we further prove:

Let us say that this supports

Rabbi Yoḥanan from that which is taught:

Bread that has become moldy and has become unfit to eat for a person,

but still

a dog can eat it,

it is

rendered impure with food impurity through an egg-bulk.

Since the status of food had already applied to it, and the law of impurity had already descended upon it, it no longer departs from it until it becomes unfit for a dog to eat.

And if it belongs to teruma, although it is still pure, it is

burned together with

the

impure teruma on Passover.

Since it is already unfit for human consumption, there is no obligation to guard it from impurity.

And this beraita was certainly taught according to the view of Rabbi Yosei. For according to Rabbi Meir, even bread fit for human consumption is burned together with the impure, and not specifically bread that has become moldy.

And from the fact that Rabbi Yosei agrees concerning teruma that is not fit for eating, infer from it that he agrees concerning teruma of leaven at the beginning of seven that it is permitted to make it impure. For it is already unfit for eating according to the Torah, and in accordance with Rabbi Yoḥanan.

And we reject:

That case is different,

in the case of bread that has become moldy,

for

in reality it is unfit for eating, but

it is merely dust.

And it is not similar to leaven at the beginning of seven, which is still, in reality, food, except that because of the prohibition it is impossible to eat it.

And we raised it: According to Rabbi Yoḥanan, who says that Rabbi Meir learned from the words of Rabbi Hanina, the Deputy High Priest—

if so, what

did Rabbi Yosei reply to him: “And

Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua agree that one burns this by itself and that by itself”? But Rabbi Meir did not prove his law from their words.

And we answered:

This is what Rabbi Yosei said to Rabbi

Meir:

It is not necessary to say that according to Rabbi Eliezer, who is stringent and earlier forbids [in the case of the barrel that was broken in the winepress] making the wine impure by hand despite the fact that in the end it will become impure on its own, for according to him it is certainly forbidden to make the teruma of leaven impure.

Rather,

even according to Rabbi Yehoshua, who is lenient

there, he was lenient only because of the loss of the non-sacred property. But concerning the teruma of leaven, he was not lenient.

And even if Rabbi Yehoshua was lenient even concerning the teruma of leaven on Passover, to make it impure, nevertheless,

when he is lenient,

only

with

teruma

that is suspended

was he lenient, to burn it together with the

impure one.

And just as we find that he was lenient concerning suspended teruma to cause impurity to come upon it on its own.

But

in the burning of

pure teruma with the

impure one—

he was not

lenient.

And we raised it further:

If so—

that our Mishna concerns meat that became impure through a derivative of impurity by rabbinic law—

why

did Rabbi Yosei reply,

“It is not the measure”?

For

it is measure for measure.

And Rabbi Meir properly proved that just as it is permitted to add impurity to meat impure by rabbinic law, so too it is permitted to make the teruma of leaven impure at the sixth hour, when it is forbidden by rabbinic law.

Rabbi Yirmeya said: Here,

in our Mishna, it is speaking

of meat

of sacrificial offerings

that became impure through liquids that became impure because of a creeping creature.

And Rabbi Hanina said concerning it that it is permitted to burn it together with meat that became impure through a primary source of impurity.

It is not specifically so. Rather, the liquids became impure through a vessel that touched a creeping creature, and they are only second-degree with regard to impurity, while the meat is third-degree. For if it were not so, the meat would be second-degree, and what addition of impurity is there? Initially it is second-degree, and now too it is second-degree. Rashi.

And Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yosei disagree concerning its impurity.

Rabbi Meir holds that it is impure only by rabbinic law. Therefore he properly proved that the same applies to the teruma of leaven at the sixth hour, when it is forbidden by rabbinic law, that it is permitted to make it impure.

And Rabbi Yosei holds that the meat is impure according to the Torah. And it was specifically for this reason that Rabbi Hanina permitted adding impurity to it. But if it is impure only by rabbinic law, it is forbidden to add impurity to it. And the same applies to a rabbinic prohibition.

And Rabbi Meir proceeded according to his reasoning, and Rabbi Yosei according to his reasoning.

Rabbi Meir according to his reasoning, for he said: The impurity of liquids to render others impure

is only

rabbinic!

For according to the Torah liquids do not render anything impure at all, neither foods nor liquids. Therefore, liquids that became impure through a creeping creature render the meat impure only by rabbinic law. And Rabbi Hanina, the Deputy High Priest, permitted making it impure with impurity from the Torah through the meat that became impure through a primary source of impurity. [And Rabbi Yirmeya holds like Abaye or like Rav Adda bar Ahava, who said above that food renders food impure in sacrificial offerings according to the Torah, and not like Ravina in the name of Rava.] And Rabbi Yosei according to his reasoning, for he said: The impurity of liquids to render others impure is

Rabbi Meir followed his reasoning, and Rabbi Yosei followed his reasoning.

Rabbi Meir followed his reasoning, for he said: The impurity of liquids, with regard to rendering others impure,

is only

rabbinic!

from the Torah!

And our Mishna is speaking of liquids that touched a vessel that became impure through a creeping creature: The vessel is first-degree, and the liquids are second-degree. And they make the meat third-degree according to the Torah.

And it was specifically for this reason that Rabbi Hanina, the Deputy High Priest, permitted making it impure through the meat that became impure through a primary source of impurity, and making it second-degree.

is

by Torah law!

And our Mishna concerns liquids that touched a vessel that became impure through a creeping creature. The vessel is first-degree impurity, and the liquids are second-degree impurity. They render the flesh third-degree impure by Torah law.

It was specifically for this reason that Rabbi Ḥanina, Deputy of the Priests, permitted rendering it impure through flesh that had become impure through a primary source of impurity, thereby making it second-degree impurity.