Pesachim 20b (כ:) — the Talmud in English

The verse states: “Everything that is inside it [] [inside the earthenware vessel]

shall become impure,” and it is adjacent

to the verse, to teach which object found inside it shall become impure:

“of all food

that may be eaten.”

And therefore we expound it as follows: only

food

found inside an earthenware vessel containing a dead creeping creature

becomes impure [becomes impure]

through the airspace of the earthenware vessel.

But a vessel

of metal or wood located inside an earthenware vessel

does not become impure through the airspace of the earthenware vessel

when there is a dead creeping creature in the airspace of the earthenware vessel.

It follows that although the earthenware vessel itself becomes impure from the creeping creature found in its airspace, we do not say with regard to it that “it is considered as though it were filled with impurity,” so that the creeping creature would be considered to be touching everything inside it. Therefore, the other vessels inside it do not become impure.

We learned in the Mishna: Rabbi Yosei said: This is not the rule. And Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua agree that we burn [pure and impure teruma] this one separately and that one separately. With regard to what did they disagree? With regard to teruma whose status is uncertain and impure teruma. For Rabbi Eliezer says: This one shall be burned separately and that one separately; and Rabbi Yehoshua says: Both are burned together.

Rav Ḥisda raises a contradiction

between the law of leavened teruma on

Passover and the law of leavened teruma on

Passover.

And he resolves

it.

And this is how he challenged it:

Who said that

Rabbi Yehoshua

teruma whose status is uncertain and impure teruma are burned

both together?

And he raises a contradiction:

Rabbi Meir said: From their words we learned that impure teruma is burned together with pure teruma on Passover eve.

And

he

said to him,

Rabbi Yosei: The case under discussion is not comparable to the proof.

When our Sages testified [Rabbi Ḥanina, deputy of the priests, and Rabbi Akiva],

what did they testify about?

If they testified about meat that became impure through an offspring of impurity, which is burned together with meat that became impure through a primary source of impurity,

we are not particular about the fact that this adds impurity to its impurity. For in any event, meat

this is impure, and

meat

this is impure.

If they testified about oil that was disqualified through

contact with

one who immersed that day, which is lit with a lamp that became impure through one rendered impure by a corpse,

although this adds a new status of impurity to the oil [from this point it is fit to render others impure], this is because in any event oil

this is disqualified, and

oil

this is impure.

Therefore, we do not care that through the lamp this oil will become capable of rendering others impure.

We too agree with regard to teruma that became impure through an offspring of an offspring of

an offspring of

impurity [which is only third-degree impurity],

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

although impurity is added to it by making it second-degree impurity, because in any event it is disqualified.

But how can we burn

pure teruma, or

even teruma whose status is uncertain [possibly impure],

with

the

impure teruma?

Is there not the concern that

Elijah will come and declare them pure

with regard to the uncertainties? It will then be found that the teruma is pure, and it is forbidden to render it impure.

And although we are speaking of the sixth hour of Passover eve, when in any event the teruma is destined for disposal, it is forbidden to render it impure.

In any event, it is taught that Rabbi Yosei forbade rendering even teruma whose status is uncertain impure on Passover eve.

Whereas in the Mishna Rabbi Yosei says that only pure teruma may not be burned together with impure teruma. But with regard to teruma whose status is uncertain and impure teruma, Rabbi Yehoshua permitted them to be burned together.

And Rav Ḥisda resolves

it for him:

This

statement of the Mishna

is Rabbi Shimon

who

is speaking according to Rabbi Yehoshua

and says this.

But this

statement of the beraita

is Rabbi Yosei

who

is speaking according to Rabbi Yehoshua

and says this.

As it is taught: When the fourteenth of Nisan

falls on Shabbat,

everything is removed [the leaven]

before Shabbat. And impure, uncertain, and pure terumot are burned

together

—the statement of Rabbi Meir.

And Rabbi Meir follows his own reasoning: Since the teruma is destined for disposal, it is permitted to render it impure.

Rabbi Yosei says:

The

pure teruma is burned

separately, and the

teruma whose status is uncertain separately, and

the

impure separately.

Although all of them will ultimately be disposed of, it is forbidden to render them impure. And even teruma whose status is uncertain is not burned together with impure teruma, lest it be pure. Likewise, it is not burned together with pure teruma, lest it be impure and render the pure teruma impure.

Rabbi Shimon said: Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua did not disagree with regard to pure and impure teruma, that they may not be burned

together.

And likewise they did not disagree

with regard to

the

teruma whose status is uncertain

and with regard to pure teruma, which are burned

together. Since definite impurity has not been established with regard to the uncertain teruma, it does not appear that one is deliberately rendering the pure teruma impure.

With regard to what did they disagree?

With regard to

the

teruma whose status is uncertain and impure teruma.

For Rabbi Eliezer says: This one shall be burned

separately

and that one

separately

because it may be pure.

And Rabbi Yehoshua says:

They shall be burned

both together,

since, as it is of uncertain status, you are not warned to guard it.

Thus Rabbi Yosei and Rabbi Shimon disagree according to Rabbi Yehoshua as to whether there is a warning to guard teruma whose status is uncertain from impurity or not.

The Mishna is Rabbi Shimon according to Rabbi Yehoshua, whereas the beraita is Rabbi Yosei according to Rabbi Yehoshua.

And we raise a difficulty:

But the Mishna

which teaches: “With regard to what did they disagree? With regard to teruma whose status is uncertain and impure teruma, for Rabbi Yehoshua says: Both are burned together”—was stated according to

Rabbi Yosei, and it was not Rabbi Shimon who stated it. Yet Rabbi Yosei does not hold this way.

And we answer:

This is what Rabbi Yosei said to Rabbi Meir:

It is unnecessary to say that according to my position, they certainly may not be burned together. Rather,

even according to the position of

Rabbi

Shimon, and according to Rabbi Yehoshua, who is more lenient than Rabbi Eliezer, they likewise may not be burned together.

For when

Rabbi Yehoshua is lenient,

Rabbi Yehoshua

with regard to

teruma

whose status is uncertain and impure

is lenient.

But with regard to pure and impure teruma, he was not lenient,

and according to everyone they may not be burned together.

Rabbi Yosei bar Ḥanina raises a contradiction

from what we learned with regard to

ordinary teruma

and from what we learned in the Mishna with regard to leavened teruma on

Passover.

And he resolves

it.

And this is how he challenged it:

But

who said Rabbi Yehoshua

that teruma whose status is uncertain and impure teruma are burned on Passover

both together [as Rabbi Yosei said in his name]?

And he raises a contradiction: A barrel of teruma in which a doubt concerning impurity arose—

Rabbi Eliezer says: If it was placed in an exposed place [a place open to the public],

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

Even with regard to teruma whose status is uncertain, one is warned to guard it from impurity, because it is written, “the safeguarding of My teruma,” while we read it as “the safeguarding of My terumot,” in the plural. There is a principle that the reading is determinative. Thus two are implied: one pure and one of uncertain status.

Rabbi Yehoshua says: If it was placed in a concealed place,

he is permitted to

place it in an exposed place.

And if it was covered,

he is permitted to

uncover it.

Although by doing so he causes it to become impure on its own, he holds that the written consonantal form is determinative. It is written, “the safeguarding of My teruma,” in the singular, implying only pure teruma, whose safeguarding you are warned to maintain, but not teruma whose status is uncertain.

It follows that even according to Rabbi Yehoshua, only rendering it impure through

indirect causation is not [permitted]. But rendering it impure

by hand, he did not

permit, even in the case of teruma whose status is uncertain. How, then, did Rabbi Yosei say in the Mishna in his name that it is permitted to burn impure teruma together with teruma whose status is uncertain on Passover? By doing so, one renders it impure by hand.

And he resolves

it:

This

statement that Rabbi Yosei made in the Mishna was not stated according to his own position; rather, he stated it according to

Rabbi Shimon according to Rabbi Yehoshua,

who permits rendering teruma whose status is uncertain impure even by hand.

And

this

statement taught in the name of Rabbi Yehoshua, that it is permitted to render it impure only through indirect causation and not by hand, is according to

Rabbi Yosei according to Rabbi Yehoshua

himself.

Rabbi Shimon and Rabbi Yosei already disagreed according to Rabbi Yehoshua, as cited above in the beraita.

Rabbi Elazar raises a contradiction

from what we learned concerning a barrel of

teruma

in which a doubt concerning impurity arose,

to

what we learned concerning a broken barrel of teruma.

And he resolves

it.

And this is how he challenged it:

But

who said Rabbi Yehoshua

that it is permitted to render teruma whose status is uncertain impure only through indirect causation, as is implied by the above beraita, from which we inferred:

“Indirect causation, not

but

by hand, no”?!

And he raises a contradiction: A barrel

of pure

teruma wine

that broke in the upper winepress [the place where grapes are trodden],

and in the pit

beneath which

there are

located

impure non-sacred produce,

and the teruma wine is about to fall into it and become impure because of it—

Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua agree that if

he

can save from it [from the barrel of teruma]

a quarter-log

of wine

in purity,

he should save it!

For if he has no vessel at hand other than an impure vessel, he is forbidden to receive in it the teruma wine spilling from the barrel, since by doing so he renders it impure.

Rather, if he has enough time to bring a pure vessel and save at least a quarter-log of wine in purity, he is obligated to do so. This is so even though meanwhile the remainder of the wine will fall into the impure non-sacred produce and mix with it, rendering even that produce prohibited for drinking [as is the law of a mixture of non-sacred produce and teruma, which is forbidden to non-priests even when it is pure. In this case it is forbidden even to priests, since the teruma will become impure through the impure non-sacred produce. A priest who eats impure teruma violates a positive commandment].

Nevertheless, if he can save a quarter-log of wine in purity, he should do so, even at the cost of causing the loss of the impure non-sacred produce.

And if not,

but by the time he searches for a pure vessel all the wine will fall into the non-sacred produce and become impure through it—

Rabbi Eliezer says: Let

all the pure teruma

descend

into the pit and become impure

on its own, but he should not render it impure by hand.

Although in any event the teruma will ultimately become impure, it is forbidden to render it impure by hand.

And Rabbi Yehoshua says:

He is even permitted to

render it impure by hand.

This does not violate “the safeguarding of My teruma,” since in any event it will ultimately become impure because of the impure non-sacred produce in the pit. It follows that he holds that with regard to any teruma destined for disposal, one is not warned concerning its impurity. Teruma whose status is uncertain is likewise destined for disposal. This contradicts what is implied by the earlier beraita concerning teruma whose status is uncertain, that Rabbi Yehoshua permitted rendering it impure only through indirect causation and not by hand.

And Rabbi Elazar resolves

it:

There

in the case of the broken barrel,

there is a loss

of the non-sacred

wine

in the pit. But where there is no loss, it is forbidden to render it impure by hand, even though it is destined for disposal.

Rava challenges this:

But in

the Mishna as well there is a loss of wood.

If you obligate him to burn the pure teruma separately and the impure teruma separately, he will have to make two fires and use more wood. Why, then, did Rabbi Yehoshua prohibit burning them together?

Abaye said to him: They were concerned about a substantial loss

like the loss of non-sacred wine in the pit,

but

they were not concerned about

a minor loss,

the additional wood,

and therefore did not take it into consideration.

And we establish the proof:

And from where do you say that

only

a substantial loss was taken into consideration,

but

a minor loss was not taken into consideration?

From

that

which

is taught: A barrel of pure teruma oil

that broke in the upper winepress, and in the lower one [in the pit beneath it] there are

impure non-sacred produce—

Rabbi Eliezer concedes to Rabbi Yehoshua that if he can save from it a quarter-log in purity,

he should save it.

But if not, according to everyone it should descend into the pit and render the oil there impure,

and he should not

receive the teruma in an impure vessel and

render it impure by hand!

It follows that Rabbi Yehoshua concedes with regard to oil that although it is ultimately destined to become impure, it is forbidden to render it impure by hand, even at the cost of causing the loss of the non-sacred oil, because this is not a substantial loss.

And we inquire concerning this:

What is different about oil

that it is considered a minor loss—is it not because

even

though through the mixture the non-sacred oil becomes prohibited for eating, nevertheless

it is fit to be used for lighting

with it?

If so, why in the case of wine is it considered a substantial loss?

Wine

of the

non-sacred produce likewise,

although it becomes prohibited for eating, is still

fit

for

sprinkling [it was customary to sprinkle wine on vessels so that they would acquire its pleasant scent]. It follows that rendering it impure does not entail a substantial loss. Why, then, did Rabbi Yehoshua permit rendering it impure?

And if you would say

to resolve it that

sprinkling is not considered significant,

and is not considered a form of use, and therefore if the non-sacred produce mixes with the teruma this would entail a substantial loss—that cannot be said.

For Shmuel said in the name of Rabbi Ḥiyya: One drinks

wine whose price is

a log for a sela, and one sprinkles

wine whose price is

a log for two sela.

If a person has inexpensive wine and fine wine, it is preferable for him to drink the inexpensive wine and sprinkle the fine wine.

It follows that sprinkling is more significant than drinking. If so, even if the non-sacred wine mixes with the impure teruma, this does not entail a substantial loss, because it is still fit for sprinkling.

And we answer: Wine is fit for sprinkling only when it is aged, when its fragrance is strong. Here we are speaking

of

wine

that is new.

Since it is not fit for sprinkling, there is a substantial loss if it becomes prohibited for eating.

And we challenge this again:

But it is fit

to keep it and

age it until it becomes fit for sprinkling. Why, then, is this considered a substantial loss?

And we answer: After it mixes with the impure teruma, it will be forbidden to age it, because it is forbidden to store impure teruma, since

it may lead to a mishap.

We are concerned that perhaps he will come to drink it.

And we challenge this again: If so, why is it permitted to store impure oil for the purpose of lighting it?

But with

oil as well, there is concern

perhaps

he will eat it, and

it may lead to a mishap.

And we answer: With oil we are not concerned about a mishap, because

since

he uses it for lighting,

he places it [sets it down]

in a repulsive vessel,

and it is no longer fit for eating.

And we challenge this again: If so, he should likewise store

the

impure teruma

wine, by

placing it in a repulsive vessel

that disqualifies it for eating, so that it will no longer lead to a mishap.

And we answer: Since

he needs it for sprinkling, would he

place it in a repulsive vessel?!

He needs its pleasant scent, and if he places it in a repulsive vessel, its fragrance will deteriorate.

And

the Gemara says that the concern of

the mishap itself

is subject to a dispute among

the tannaim.

As it is taught: A barrel of teruma wine that became impure—

Beit Shammai say: Let the bundle be poured out [as a bundle]. That is, all of it should be poured out at once, and one should not sprinkle from it little by little, even on that same day, because we are concerned that perhaps he will drink from it.

And Beit Hillel say: It should be used for sprinkling,

because we are not concerned about a mishap.

Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosei, said: I will decide

between Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel.

If it became impure

in the field,

let the bundle be poured out.

For he has nothing on which to sprinkle it in the field, and he should not bring it home, because we are concerned that meanwhile he may drink from it.

But if it became impure

in the house, it should be used for sprinkling.

For he can sprinkle it immediately, and over such a short time we are not concerned about a mishap.

Some say that Rabbi Yishmael said as follows:

With

new wine, which is not yet fit for sprinkling,

let the bundle be poured out [all at once], and he should not store it until it ages, because we are concerned about a mishap over such a long period.

But

with

a barrel of

aged wine, which is already fit for sprinkling,

it should be used for sprinkling.

Even if it became impure in the field, he should bring it home, since over such a short time we are not concerned about a mishap. Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosei, lived in a later generation than Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel.