Pesachim 15b (טו:) — the Talmud in English

And the Gemara brings the conclusion of the tosefta’s statement: Rabbi Yosei further replied to Rabbi Meir: The flesh of sacrificial offerings that is

pigul

—

disqualified by a prohibited intention

[for example, if, at the time of its slaughter, one intended to eat it beyond its allotted time or outside its designated place], and

the

flesh of sacrificial offerings that is

notar

after its allotted time, and

the

flesh of sacrificial offerings that is

impure,

whose law is that they must be burned:

Beit Shammai say: They may not

burn the flesh of the pigul, the notar, and the impure flesh

together

[at the same time], because they thereby become impure. Even though their law is that they must be burned, it is forbidden to render them impure. And although, in any event, the Sages decreed that they render the hands impure, it is forbidden to render them impure with tuma by Torah law.

And Beit Hillel say:

They may all be

burned together.

We are not concerned that the impure flesh will render the pigul and notar impure. Since, in any event, the Sages decreed impurity upon them.

Rabbi Yosei proved from this: Beit Hillel disagreed only because they have a rabbinic status of impurity. But otherwise, everyone would agree that it is forbidden to render them impure.

It is evident, then, that it is forbidden to render pure sacrificial offerings impure, even though they are destined to be lost. The same applies to pure teruma of hametz on Passover eve.

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

And if it enters your mind that Rabbi Meir stated his law on the basis of Rabbi Yehoshua’s words

—

why did Rabbi Yosei reply to him

by distinguishing it

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

After all, Rabbi Meir did not prove his law from that source.

Rav Naḥman said to him: Rabbi Yosei

was not aware of it!

He did not know from where Rabbi Meir had derived this ruling.

He

[Rabbi Yosei]

thought

that

Rabbi Meir, from

within his statement,

was referring to the words of Rabbi Ḥanina, Deputy of the Priests

as the source of his ruling. Therefore, he replied to him as he did.

And

therefore

he said to him

Rabbi Meir: I did not derive it from that source. Rather,

I—

from

the case

in which

Rabbi Yehoshua

permitted

to render impure teruma that was destined to be lost—

I say

that the pure may be burned together with the impure!

And

again

Rabbi Yosei said to him: And

even

according to Rabbi Yehoshua—

this is not the same principle,

so that one may derive from his statement the law concerning pure teruma of hametz on Passover eve.

For Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua agree that one burns

this one

by itself and

that one

by itself.

And we inquire:

And why is this not the same principle?

After all,

it is precisely the same principle!

Just as, in the case of a barrel that broke, Rabbi Yehoshua permitted one to render the teruma wine impure because it would ultimately become impure, so too he should permit one to render pure teruma of hametz impure. For in any event, it is destined to be lost.

And we answer:

That case is different,

in the case of a barrel that broke in the winepress, where he permitted one to render it impure by hand, because if he does not receive the wine in the impure vessel, the wine will fall into the pit and mix with the non-sacred wine there, and

there is a loss of non-sacred produce.

For from that point on, it will be forbidden to eat because of the mixture with the impure teruma.

Rav Yirmeya raised an objection:

But in

our Mishna too, there is a loss of wood.

For if we prohibit burning the impure together with the pure, one will have to light two pyres and use additional wood. Because of this loss, we should permit him to burn them together and thereby render the pure impure.

A certain elder said to him

Rav Yirmeya:

They were concerned

about the great loss of the non-sacred wine in the pit,

but

they were not concerned

about the 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 concerns Passover eve

at

the

sixth hour.

For teruma of hametz is forbidden then only by rabbinic law. By Torah law, it is still permitted to eat. Therefore Rabbi Yosei prohibited rendering it impure.

But at

the

seventh hour,

when hametz is forbidden by Torah law,

everyone agrees that they burn

the pure teruma together with the impure. Since it is forbidden to eat by Torah law, it is considered like something impure.

Rabbi Zeira said to Rabbi Asi:

Should we

say

that, as a result,

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

That is, Rabbi Ḥanina permitted burning flesh that became impure through a primary source of impurity by Torah law together with flesh that became impure through a derivative of impurity by rabbinic law.

And what

is the meaning of

“We learned it from their words,” as Rabbi Meir said—

he was referring to the words of Rabbi Ḥanina, Deputy of the Priests

as the source.

And the reason Rabbi Meir permitted rendering the pure impure on Passover eve is not that it is destined to be burned, as Rabbi Yehoshua said. Rather, it is because it is forbidden to eat by rabbinic law. Rabbi Meir compares a rabbinic prohibition against eating to flesh impure by rabbinic law, which Rabbi Ḥanina, Deputy of the Priests, permitted one to render impure through flesh impure by Torah law.

Accordingly, it is permitted to render the teruma impure only during the sixth hour, when it is forbidden to eat by rabbinic law. But during the fourth and fifth hours, Rabbi Meir would agree that it is forbidden to render it impure. For even by rabbinic law it is not yet forbidden to eat.

Or perhaps Rabbi Meir’s reason is not the rabbinic prohibition. Rather, it is because it is destined to be burned, in accordance with Rabbi Yehoshua. If so, it is also permitted to render it impure during the fourth and fifth hours. And when Rabbi Yoḥanan said, “The dispute concerns the sixth hour,” he did not mean this specifically. Rather, Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yosei disagreed even earlier.

Rabbi Asi said to him

Rabbi Asi:

Yes!

Rabbi Yoḥanan specifically said that they disagreed during the sixth hour , and not earlier. Rabbi Meir derived his ruling from the words of Rabbi Ḥanina, Deputy of the Priests, and not from the words of Rabbi Yehoshua.

It was likewise stated

as follows:

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

is the meaning of

“We learned it from their words,” as Rabbi Meir said—

from the words of Rabbi Ḥanina, Deputy of the Priests,

who permitted rendering a third-degree impurity, which is rabbinic, impure through a second-degree impurity. Rabbi Meir’s reasoning is that the teruma is forbidden during the sixth hour by rabbinic law. He derives a rabbinic prohibition from rabbinic impurity, which it is permitted to intensify.

And the dispute concerns the sixth hour. But during the seventh hour—

everyone agrees that they burn!

Before the sixth hour, everyone agrees that one does not burn the pure together with the impure, because it is not even subject to a rabbinic prohibition.

And we seek to prove:

Let us say that this supports

the position of Rabbi Yoḥanan, who said, “During the seventh hour, everyone agrees that they burn.”

For we learned earlier: Rabbi Yosei replied to Rabbi Meir: The flesh of

the pigul and

flesh of

the notar and

the

impure flesh—

Beit Shammai say: They may not be burned together,

so that the impure flesh will not render the pigul and notar impure.

And Beit Hillel say: They may be burned

all

together,

since the pigul and notar are in any event forbidden to eat.

And Rabbi Yosei holds that Beit Hillel permitted rendering impure specifically pigul and notar, which are forbidden by Torah law.

But they did not permit this in the case of something whose prohibition is only rabbinic.

It is evident, then, that Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yosei disagreed only concerning a rabbinic prohibition, namely, during the sixth hour. But during the seventh hour, when the prohibition is by Torah law, everyone agrees that the impure may be burned together with the pure.

And we reject this: There is no proof from that source.

For perhaps Rabbi Yosei disagreed even at the beginning of the seventh hour. Although the teruma is then forbidden by Torah law, nevertheless it does not have the status of impurity. Therefore, it is forbidden to render it impure.

And that case is different,

the pigul and notar, for Beit Hillel did not permit rendering them impure because of their prohibition. Rather, it was because

they

in any event

have rabbinic impurity.

And

as we learned: The pigul and notar render the hands impure.

Anyone who touches them has impure hands. They decreed this impurity in order to prevent the priests from rendering the offering pigul, from being negligent in eating it, and from leaving some of it beyond its allotted time. They did not decree impurity upon the entire body, but only upon the hands.

And we seek another proof:

Let us say that this supports

Rabbi Yoḥanan, from that which was taught:

Bread that has become moldy and is unfit for human consumption,

but

a dog can still eat it,

it

renders food impure with the impurity of food in the measure of an egg.

Once it acquired the status of food, and the laws of impurity have already taken effect upon it, that status does not leave it until it becomes unfit for canine consumption.

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

may be burned together with

the

impure teruma on Passover.

Since it is no longer fit for human consumption, there is no obligation to guard it from impurity.

This beraita was certainly taught according to the view of Rabbi Yosei. For according to Rabbi Meir, even bread fit for human consumption may be burned together with the impure, and not only bread that has become moldy.

And from the fact that Rabbi Yosei agrees in the case of teruma that is no longer edible, infer that he agrees concerning teruma of hametz at the beginning of the seventh hour that it is permitted to render it impure. For it is already no longer fit for consumption by Torah law, in accordance with Rabbi Yoḥanan.

And we reject this:

That case is different,

in the case of bread that has become moldy,

for

in reality it is unfit for consumption; rather,

it is merely dust.

It is not comparable to hametz at the beginning of the seventh hour, which is still physically food; it is only impossible to eat because of the prohibition.

And we inquire: According to Rabbi Yoḥanan, who said that Rabbi Meir derived his ruling from the words of Rabbi Ḥanina, Deputy of the Priests—

if so, what

did Rabbi Yosei mean by replying to him, “And

Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua agree

that one burns this separately and that separately”? After all, Rabbi Meir did not prove his ruling from their words.

And we answer:

This is what Rabbi Yosei said to Rabbi

Meir:

It is unnecessary to say that Rabbi Eliezer, who is stringent and earlier [in the case of a barrel that broke in the winepress] prohibited rendering the wine impure by hand even though it would become impure on its own, would certainly prohibit rendering teruma of hametz impure.

Rather,

even Rabbi Yehoshua, who is lenient

in that case, was lenient only because of the loss of the non-sacred produce. But he was not lenient in the case of teruma of hametz.

And even if Rabbi Yehoshua was lenient in the case of teruma of hametz on Passover and permitted rendering it impure, nevertheless,

when he is lenient,

it is specifically

with regard to

teruma

of uncertain status that he is lenient, permitting it to be burned with the

impure.

And similarly, we find that he was lenient with teruma of uncertain status, allowing it to become impure on its own.

But

in the burning of

pure teruma with the

impure—

he was not

lenient.

And we inquire further:

If so—

if our Mishna concerns flesh that became impure through a derivative of impurity, which is rabbinic—

why

did Rabbi Yosei reply

“This is not the same principle”?

After all,

it is precisely the same principle.

Rabbi Meir properly proved that just as it is permitted to add impurity to flesh that is impure by rabbinic law, so too it is permitted to render teruma of hametz impure during the sixth hour, when it is forbidden by rabbinic law.

Rabbi Yirmeya said: Here,

in our Mishna, the matter concerns

flesh

of sacrificial offerings

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

And concerning this, Rabbi Ḥanina said that it is permitted to burn it together with flesh that became impure through a primary source of impurity.

[This is not meant literally. Rather, the liquids became impure through a vessel that touched a creeping creature, and they are only second-degree impurity, while the flesh is third-degree. Otherwise, the flesh would be second-degree, and what additional impurity is there? Initially it was 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 teruma of hametz during the sixth hour, when it is forbidden by rabbinic law: it is permitted to render it impure.

And Rabbi Yosei holds that the flesh is impure by Torah law. It was specifically for this reason that Rabbi Ḥanina permitted adding impurity to it. But if it were impure only by rabbinic law, it would be forbidden to add impurity to it. The same applies to a rabbinic prohibition.

And

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!

By Torah law, liquids do not render anything impure at all, neither foods nor liquids. Therefore, liquids that became impure through a creeping creature render the flesh impure only by rabbinic law. Rabbi Ḥanina, Deputy of the Priests, permitted rendering it impure by Torah law through flesh that had become impure through a primary source of impurity.

[And Rabbi Yirmeya holds like Abaye or like Rav Adda bar Ahava, who said earlier that food renders food impure with regard to sacrificial offerings by Torah law, and not like Ravina in the name of Rava].

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

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.